Th ee
Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2008 with funding from
Microsoft Corporation
https://archive.org/details/threeliteraryletOOdionuoft
re
———SCCUC ele CX aie a
DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSUS
tite a kREE UIbERARY LETTERS
Zondon: C. J. CLAY anv SONS,
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS WAREHOUSE,
AVE MARIA LANE.
Glasgow: so, WELLINGTON STREET.
Leipsig: F. A. BROCKHAUS.
few Work: THE MACMILLAN COMPANY.
Bombay: E. SEYMOUR HALE.
> wh. ao “<i wi me eee os ity: 2
‘ = f ; ae Was i i he aay
* o's A ue me % r a) “a* s
Lae Lo Nyt CRE bie rap algeart esmeiy Lei
Ala ae ly Seg rai re en ae Got laces
‘ pendtr eS nt Mere Yip ienren mee, ae tt AE Grip «pee op gon
paphaper: laluplew Be rip peers hae joo pune He Siar sat Ago
prope ppm messy: Lite ciermip pe ree rer Sp weary Oh ay weeny lege ipo
pop Spe perp lary > flarey: lade re ple practters lec ¢ Lepemera Ao mayb gree:
eee Na me tipe err tert heat rr tee af leap DE laine ys beawy Stary mp
ee Berge le Spry Lem lapap ip rae am Selapeny thot Lone ip bye asi
Leena ap Apa Aliya Levi Come Be aie me vice TiP Cp mrmp ep Glare $e
wtp alee Np ray Orey crete NE Spo peary lem Li ego 11 Aap ogee ogc
Tee ple ape qielpen ps php ep care ret elepinip op ror aire gp fap re
Gh Ab sagt phe depen is sp br Peer Lop Mei linia lekze ees eae
pepiere Lime Fs pesca hp pie Meng tp eves ree cep pol pareey dumopyer,
ares beret ope arew fr Sowtmecop TA Ged Map rte bu pos rrag ares rip abe
peolpey wee re wep te hare ap Bape Lt ap spony Sp mrgnge lems oe wed
Leap hi peyeay pads payer Shanty = bas ow Nor lee wpsanp A mpage
an bap rectar crm eg gp: re weg pare dipr) om pocroy: ow powren
Spree gpeerep et Psy Go aphpmrep ct hen po bpmcrnp: a1 eae?
seme Spey mye ree hay Uv ppg Ky expen lap ot clay afc os ou ot ap bn pis
army pa & lied s Lewy Zee rh lame Lents fork Crs larg, la tgs eee de
ype i rw Sap Meg rie be ledi} aw lente acy Phones beni gbngeaine
Le tpg me rss pele craps om oye Galioy wey «pnatectfa hecwannl
ee ee bere OA bop met paps of jm 3 Oe pry se lass 01 77
pe rr dep Lem Ai he py sop Lee rrerro1 Bites rep Lmertoerey Ac poy mp
Fle Mate werd NE auras lest yoy a lerh py lea pert, det reat rep ats Ye
Amare ip spare TAG ah tape » gp arp gy pore Lay ren Coprt oe
; Pint tet poner, Gort he be mere oh Sarat te lie sect ire aes
f hehe pap demb e710 Cay riuapand fp Ne Cy Aap Gwe
=
ee Ma ee tf poy me tlie tov lin Hy Revd & bar Po ares lary be pepe
j ope prey: rode f hae rep a hpazey: erp thle mp me piour- te
wrt Gp ew bee Powe beep 3 pace chpep Lee re Kpeenps ocr lem ae Nypey
Fey gma f a i
1741 fol. 103" (=p. 132 '9—p. 136 17 huius editionis). Vide P- 49 tfra
Frontispiece,
a
f) ele Ae MASS STIS
>
Pia. OPO AY Porn tiwly We aa ADM AEE
WITH
LESS te Awsi4 TION. PACSIGNILEE HETES.
me , OF RHETOLIOAL AND (GRAMMATICAL
Be :
WOGRAPHS, AND INTRODUCTORY BS54 ¥
S708 AS 4 LITERARY, CRITIC
i Vite foovee ees PS eC OF NORTH Wale
Cn (eae wh rs (EE EGE, OAHU IMIR |
me ae Mew’ Dh ues SURLEME.
{AMBRIDGE :
Wis UNIVERSITY PRESS
GA Rights vretrned J \
ao ;
~~ bel } : We
Bee LITERARY LRAERRS
ay ‘ge.
* a ed weer
| roe . * +e. aw
Ci SED Seer Ee ween nr pte ee
'
t 7 ed "+ ae i ae ~ n'y é _
~ ‘ 4 ee © ana”
* a te * = rae
~~ oo 44% are ah
a ee ¥ st ts i, 4
ey ad 4% 7 a Ny Fria igh “ ee OMG
Seo ,? Ame Ur, Bee oy A ht i
wie t “yr tag rey. or ‘ nl ia iow
a ae ates Woe Ae: vig Marana eee Pee
ae + ee tee rag oid
me oe (ore
le 2 i b= Pes Sue id ’ et ot ee
a .** party ne a Pataed. 40 ;
a eee ae aay eS dy Te
the J se WP Ry >>? - me, ayes’ Halen ee copie hee
— 4 , . OT ee ee eee er E
t.) ake “ A cnt ad ts,..0 \phiean wie « hopntalit alle ayy
“ Cy! ge 2~aggp oi Ss as ei yc meray: ines
rarest . Gadtgere sy) ge wey nal ii ae
ee mah al BE aa oe o> ah Ses
hehe 4 oes Muda fe npansce Bye ep padi
silnebnnSin Ny “Pine by on 08 geht
aa (eo Bh, OP a RO Sit per 1h Wie ae —
af Wen Get T= . pease phere fore pe > phage de
~~ ee Site ete Die tee ed yd tlc dae “ped
ee ae ee tet 6-6 Pina voters Ane
DIONYSIUS
Gime LICARNASSUS
ieee ake: LITERARY LETTERS
(Ep. aD AMMAEUM I, Ep. aD PompriuM, Ep. ap AMMAEumM II)
THE GREEK TEXT EDITED
WITH
ENGLISH TRANSLATION, FACSIMILE, NOTES,
GLOSSARY OF RHETORICAL AND GRAMMATICAL
TERMS, BIBLIOGRAPHY, AND INTRODUCTORY ESSAY
ON DIONYSIUS AS A LITERARY CRITIC
BY
WeekitysS ROBERTS, Lirt.D.,
PROFESSOR OF GREEK IN THE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF NORTH WALES
BANGOR; LATE FELILOW OF KING’S COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE;
EDITOR OF ‘LONGINUS ON THE SUBLIME.’
2°
got
z E, [ol
CAMBRIDGE: ° /
AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.
1QOI
[All Rights reserved. |
7 a
Cambridge :
PRINTED BY J. AND C. F. CLAY,
AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.
GULIELMO GEORGIO RUSHBROOKE
PRAECEPTORVM HABILISSIMO
PARATISSIMO AMICORVM
RREFAGCE
THIS book 1s designed on the same general plan as the
edition of ‘ Longinus on the Sublime’ which was published by
the Cambridge University Press in 1899. The Syndics have
undertaken to issue presently, in a similar form, the Greek
treatise (not hitherto edited in England) known as ‘ Demetrius
de Elocutione’,; azd / hope that the three companion volumes
may be followed im due time by two works of larger scope—a
new critical and annotated edition of the Rhetoric of Aristotle,
and a History of Greek Literary Criticism.
A common purpose underlies the series of books thus projected.
Many as are the aspects under which the ancient classics have
been studied, no sufficiently resolute and comprehensive effort
seems yet to have been made to view Greek literature through the
eyes of Greek critics. These critics have much that ts common
to them all: they have also much that ts individual in each.
In common they possess the power, which a modern can never
hope fully to attain, of appreciating the most delicate shades of
Greek literary expression. Their individuality ts sufficiently
seen in such a contrast as that presented by Dionysius and
‘ Longinus, two authors admirably adapted to supplement and
balance one another. Neither is entirely one-sided ; but Diony-
sius concerns himself mainly with questions of literary form
vill PREFACE.
and technique, whereas ‘ Longinus’ dwells more on that moral
nobleness which he thinks he discerns in all really great litera-
ture. The former has chiefly in view the art of literature,
the latter its spirit. The latter is impressed by what ts
elemental and unapproachable in genius, the former reminds
us that great artists are also great craftsmen.
The three epistolary essays included in this volume are chiefly
occupied with points of interest affecting four great Greck
prose-writers: Aristotle, Demosthenes, Plato, Thucydides. All
the three letters are more or less polemical, being protests (1)
against a literary fiction of some indtscreet Peripatetic, who had
maintained that the oratory of Demosthenes was formed upon
the Rhetoric of Aristotle ; (2) against an excessive admiration,
and servile imitation, of the style of Plato; (3) against the
adoption of a similar attitude towards the style of Thucydides.
The letters are interesting, and variously suggestive, in them-
selves. But it is hoped that the present volume will also serve
as a kind of general introduction to the entire body of extant
critical work which we owe to Dionysius. In the Introductory
Essay and in the Bibliography no pains have been spared to
give full information, and abundant references, with the view
of shedding light on all the literary essays of Dionysius ; and
in the Notes and Glossary a like effort has been made to
tlustrate his literary opinions and technical language by means
of quotations from himself and other Greek critics. The task
has been one of some difficulty, since no general introduction of
the sort here offered exists either at home or abroad and no
English translation of any of the literary essays of Dionysius
has so far appeared. The difficulty of finding suitable English
equivalents for the technical terms of Greek literary criticism ts,
indeed, far greater than any who have not essayed the task of
translation could well imagine. I have, however, derived much
incidental help, in this and other ways, from Sir Richard Jebb’s
Attic Orators and Dr J. E. Sandys Orator of Cicero, both of
which books bear witness to an intimate knowledge of the critical
PREFACE. ix
writings of Dionysius. In textual matters I am much indebted
to the work of Herwerden, Weil, Usener and Radermacher ;
but in constituting my own text [ have striven throughout to
exercise an independent judgment, and have specially collated
(for the purposes of this edition) the important Paris MS. 1741.
In the revision of the proof-sheets I have had most valuable help
From my friends Mr G. B. Mathews, Mr W. H. D. Rouse, and
Mr W. J. Woodhouse. Nor must I omit to mention the care
and acuteness which the Readers of the University Press have
once more shown in the discharge of their exacting duties.
Some not unfavourable critics of ‘Longinus on the Sub-
lime’ have suggested that the edition woula have been better
of somewhat differently planned. A Quarterly Reviewer, whose
own studies have clearly lain rather in the direction of English
literature than of the Greek and Latin classics, thinks that
more space should have been allotted to an estimate of the
modern influence of the treatise. This may be so or not ; it is
one of those questions of proportion on which views will always
differ. The same writer further thinks that the evidence im
favour of the traditional attribution of the book to Longinus
should have been more fully stated. This, again, ts a colour-
able criticism, though it must be noted that the critic is
himself apparently unable to add anything to the well-worn
arguments (accessible to all) by which the old view was sup-
ported. It is, however, a subject of real regret to me that the
reviewer, deserting matters of opinion for matters of fact,
should have gone on to say that some of the omissions he notices
‘are no doubt to be attributed to the restrictions which have, as
we understand, been placed on him [the editor| by his pub-
lishers. It ts due to the Syndics of the Cambridge University
Press to state that my volume was accepted by them exactly
as it stood, and that for any shortcomings in it I am alone
responsible. This misstatement of fact finds, [ am glad to
reflect, no warrant in anything said within the book itself.
In this edition, as in its predecessor, Greek text and English
x PREFACE.
translation have been placed on facing pages, and the necessary
explanatory matter has been thrown into the shape of Notes and
Glossary and given in the latter part of the volume. This
arrangement seems calculated to meet the wishes of any men of
letters who may be led to read the book out of interest rather
in the authors whom Dionysius elucidates than in Dionysius
himself. Such readers, we cannot doubt, would be entirely to
the mind of Dionysius. It ts said that Richard Porson once
remarked that he would be ‘ quite content tf, three hundred years
after his time, it should be said that one Porson lived towards the
close of the eighteenth century, who did a good deal for the text
of Euripides. These words show at once the modesty and the
pride of the true scholar. Dionysius also was a true scholar
in his way, but his aims were more ambitious. Hts own chief
desire probably was that, in days to come, it should be said that
there lived (in the age of Caesar Augustus) a historian, born
in the same Greek town as Herodotus, who had told once for all
the tale of the origin and growth of the great Roman power.
But should this claim be disallowed, he would then, we may
feel sure, wish to be remembered as a scholar who had con-
tributed something to the knowledge and appreciation of the
literature of Greece.
[t is, doubtless, chiefly through the influence of modern men
of letters that Dionysius has been able to transmit some share of
the Greek spirit to our day. An editor who happens to be
dating from the native county of Tennyson not unnaturally
recalls some words which early in the past century were
addressed to James Spedding : ‘ You ask me what I have been
doing. I have written several things since I saw you, some
emulation of the“nov cat Bpaxd cai peyarorrpetrés” of Alcaeus,
others of the “éxNoyn TOV dvopaTwv Kal THS cuVOécews axKpi-
Bea” of Simonides’ The Greek expressions in inverted
commas are quoted by Tennyson from the De Vet. Script.
Censura of Dionysius. It 1s a remarkable illustration of the
lasting influence of Greek literature that the representative
PREFACE. xl
poet of the age of Victoria should have been thus shaping his
genius under the guidance of the literary critic of Augustan
Rome. The experience of recent years encourages the hope that,
in the century now dawning, many tmportant discoveries will be
made which will gladden the heart of the classical student and
lift a little higher the curtain that hangs between him and the
ancient world. But for England at large no more ennobling
revelation of antiquity could be destred than the life-work of
yet another great poet who, while true to the best instincts of
the English race, shall be Roman in his reverence for law and
Greek in his love of beauty.
W. Ruvys Rosperrs.
OLD CLEE,
LINCOLNSHIRE.
New Year's Day, 1901.
CONTENTS
PAGE
INTRODUCTORY ESSAY ON DIONYSIUS AS A LITERARY CRITIC.
i ze I
Il. Antiguitates Romanae. : : , , : - 3
Ill. Scripta Rhetorica. Probable order in which they
were written. Lost writings : : ‘ ; 4
IV. Separate works of Literary Criticism
(1) De Composttione Verborum : : ;
(2) De Oratoribus Antiqguis—De admiranda vi
dicendt in Demosthene.-—De Dinarcho : 19
(3) Zp. ad Ammaeum TJ. ; : 5 : : 25
(4) Ep. ad Cn. Pompetum, and the De Jmitatione 27
(5) £p. ad Ammacum II, and the De Thucydide 30
V. Relation of Dionysius as a Literary Critic to the
Romans and to the Greeks . : ; : - 34
VI. General Estimate of Dionysius as a Literary Critic.
His Aims and his Achievements . : 2 : 43
Note on MSS. of the Three Literary Letters . : 49
EP. AD AMMAEUM I. TEXT AND TRANSLASION : 2 : 51
Ep. AD POMPEIUM. TEXT AND TRANSLATION . ‘ ; : 87
Ep. AD AMMAEUM II. TEXT AND TRANSLATION : : a E29
NOTES. : 161
GLOSSARY 183
BIBLIOGRAPHY 209
INDICES 221
Facsimile of P. 1741 : : ‘ , : : Frontispiece.
DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSUS
AS A
Pe EIWARY (CRIP IEC:
THE Three Literary Letters printed and translated in this
volume cannot be fully understood, nor will they convey a
true impression of the merits of Dionysius as a critic, unless
they are viewed in connexion with the life and general literary
activities of their author. Accordingly an endeavour will be
made, in the following pages, to give some account of the
literary work accomplished by Dionysius in the course of
his laborious career, and his aims and efforts will, so far as
it is possible, be described in his own words.
i Lire:
The birthplace of Dionysius is known, but not the year of
his birth or death. Early in his own History he mentions
the fact that he was the son of Alexander and a native of
Halicarnassus?. Strabo, a contemporary, gives similar testi-
mony, enumerating among the distinguished townsmen of
Halicarnassus ‘Herodotus the historian; Heracleitus, the
poet and friend of Callimachus; and in our own times,
the historian Dionysius?’ The active years of the life of
1 Ant. Rom. i. 8: 6 6€ cuvrdéas adrhv [sc. rhv icroplav] Atovictds eluc
"AdeEdvdpou ‘“AXtxapvacets.
* Strab. Geograph. xiv. p. 656: avdpes dé yeydvacw e& abrfs ‘Hpddords re 6
_ ovyypageds...kal “HpdxXerros 6 montis, 6 Kanddimaxou ératpos, kal Kad’ muas
Atovicios 6 cuyypagets.
2 DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSUS
Dionysius were passed at Rome; and with regard to these
years another statement of his own is our principal authority.
‘I took ship,’ he says, ‘to Italy at the time when the Civil
War was brought to an end by Augustus Caesar, in the
middle of the 187th Olympiad, and I have spent in Rome
the twenty-two years which have elapsed between that time
and this. I learnt the Latin language and made myself
familiar with the national records, and during the whole of
the time I have continued to occupy myself with the mate-
rials bearing upon my subject. Before beginning to write I
gathered information, partly from the lips of the most learned
men with whom I came into contact, and partly from _his-
tories written by Romans of whom they spoke with praise!
The two-and-twenty years thus indicated are those from
(30 Bie. tO B.C.| The year of Dionysius’ birth may therefore,
in view of this passage and of certain other references in the
History, be placed conjecturally between 60 and 55 B.C) As
regards the date of his death nothing can be affirmed except
the obvious fact that it cannot have been an earlier year than
OPC. |His calling at Rome was that of a teacher of rhetoric.
This is shown not only by the general character of his
writings, but by his promise in the De Compositione Verborum
to explain (to the young Melitius Rufus to whom he addresses
the treatise) certain points of detail ‘in our daily lessons?’
Among his friends he must, as his writings show, have
1 Ant. Rom. i. 7: é€ye xatamdetoas eis "IraNiay aua Te KaTadvOjvae Tov
Eupvrov TO\ELOV UO TOU DeBacrod Kaicapos €3dduns Kal dySonkoorAs Kal éxaToorhs
OduuTLAdos mecovans, Kal Tov €& éxelvou xpdvoy Erwv So Kal elkooe wExXpL TOD TapoyTos
yevouevoy év “Pdun Siarpivas, Suddextov te Thy “Pwyaikiy éxuabav kal ypaymdrwv
<Tév> érixwpiwy haBav émiorHyny, év wavTl ToUTW <TOe> xXpbvH TA cUVTElvoYTA
mpos Thy UTdberw Tavrnv dreTéovy MpayumaTevouevos. Kal Ta ev Tapa TOY oyW-
Tate avdpayv, ois eis duiNav nAOov, Sidaxy maparaBdv, Ta € ex THY ioTopiov
avaeEdmevos, as of mpds alray érawovmevor Pwuaiwy cuvéypawav, Ilépxids Te Kar wv
kal PaBios Mdfiuos Kat Otvarépios <6> ’Avtieds cal Acxivios Mdxep Aidiol Te Kat
TéAXoe Kat Kadzrovpyioe kai €repor cuxvol mpos Tovro.s avdpes ovK aparels, dm’ exetvwy
Opywpevos Tav Tpayuareay (elol dé Tats “EXAynuikals xpovoypadias éoxviar), rdre
érexelpnoa TH ypadn.
* De Comp. Verb. c. xx.: Tair’ év tats kal’ juépay yupvaciats mpocurodjcoual
got, kal moh\dav Te Kal dyabav mointwy Te Kal cvyypapewy Kal pnropwr wapruplacs
XpHo omar.
Aas AVLITERARY CRITIC. 3
numbered not only Melitius Rufus the elder, but Ammaeus,
Gnaeus Pompeius Geminus, and Q. Aélius Tubero,
II. ANTIQUITATES ROMANAE.
The ‘Pwpaixy Apxatoroyia (or, Antiguitates Romanae)
of Dionysius was, as the name implies, an account of the
Early Aitstory of Rome. It was written in twenty books (of
which the first nine survive in their integrity, the tenth and
eleventh in great part, the rest only in fragments), and carried
the narrative from legendary times down to the year 264 B.C."
The work was, therefore, designed to cover the period left
untouched by Polybius. It was also intended as a thank-
offering for the manifold favours which Dionysius had enjoyed
during his prolonged residence in Rome®. In preparing his
work, the author drew from good sources, as he has him-
self told us*. Notwithstanding all his praiseworthy industry,
however, he writes history in the spirit of a Greek rhetorician.
It would have been well for his fame as a historian if his
qualifications had been such as those of Polybius, of whom on
grounds of style he speaks slightingly, classing him in poor
company. ‘In iater times the art of composztion was utterly
neglected. No one thought that it was necessary, or that
it contributed anything to beauty of style. Consequently
writers left behind them volumes which no one can bring
himself to read right to the end. Cases in point are Phylar-
chus, Duris, Polybius, Psaon, Demetrius of Calantis, Hierony-
mus, Antilochus, Heracleides, Hegesias of Magnesia, and
countless others, whose names a whole day would scarcely
1 Photius (cod. 84) mentions a summary (stvoyis) of the Archaeologia, made by
Dionysius himself. A book on chronology (epi xpévwv) is described in Archaeol.
‘I. 74, and is quoted as an historical authority by Clement of Alexandria.
2 Ant. Rom. i. 6, xapiotnplovs duorBds, ds éuol Sivauus jv, dmododvac TH wédet,
madelas Te meuynuevy Kai THv G\NwY ayabay dowv amédavoa Siarplyas év avry.
3 Among the Greeks, Hieronymus of Cardia, Timaeus, and Polybius. Among
the Romans, Cato (Ovigines), Fabius Maximus (Azmales), Valerius Antias,
Licinius Macer, Aelius, Gellius, Calpurnius: see Ant. Rom. 1.7 (partly quoted
on the preceding page).
I—2
4 DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSUS
suffice to tell! Dionysius was hardly wrong in holding that
historians, no less than other writers, owe the duty of style
alike to their readers and their subject. It is his misfortune
that he falls short himself in even weightier matters. For if
the choice must be made and a history cannot unite various
excellences, then far superior to style, to erudition, to the
panegyrist’s desire to please or the moralist’s desire to in-
struct, is the mind which can seize the great facts of national
life and the character which can record them without fear or
favour.
III. ScCRIPTA RHETORICA. PROBABLE ORDER IN WHICH
THEY WERE WRITTEN. LOST WRITINGS.
Dionysius himself undoubtedly regarded the Archacologia
as the great achievement of his life. Since the reawakening of
historical criticism in the earlier decades of the past century,
the modern world has agreed to value it only so far as it re-
produces Roman authorities now lost, or records legends and
primitive observances the key to which has since been sought
by scientific inquirers. So that, by one of those curious
ironies not uncommon in the history of letters, Dionysius is
now chiefly remembered by his shorter writings. He is one
of those historians who owe such fame as they possess not so
much to their more ambitious efforts as to what they would
themselves unquestionably have considered their minor works
and more ephemeral essays.
The shorter writings of Dionysius are traditionally known
under the title Scripta Rhetorica. This title it is well to
retain, if only as a reminder that, whenever we speak of
Dionysius as a literary critic, we are speaking of one who
1 De Comp. c. 4, xpbvm 6€ torepov mayrdmacw juednOn, Kal ovdels wero deiv
dvaykaiov avTd eivat, ovde cuuBdddecHal Te Tw KdANEL THY AbywY. ToLydpToL
roavTas cuvrdées KaTédurov, olas ovdels brouéver uexpe Kopwridos dueAMeiv> bYdapxov
A€yw, Kai Aotpw, kai IodvBiov, cai Vawva, cal tov Kadavtiavoy Anuyrprov,
‘Tepavupiv re kal Avtidoxov, xal ‘Hpaxdeidnv, cai ‘Hynolay Mdyvnra, Kal dddous
buplous* wy amdvtwv Ta dvouata ef BovNoluny éyerv, emirelWer me 6 THs juépas
xpovos.
AS A LITERARY CRITIC.
uw
was, first and foremost, a teacher of rhetoric. At the same
time, if an English title general enough to cover the various
essays in question must be suggested, ‘literary criticism’ (a
term of wide application) is probably a more appropriate
heading than ‘rhetorical writings.’ Of purely technical rhe-
toric Dionysius has left us but little. The Ars Rhetorica is
no longer held to be his work, though it may possibly con-
tain fragments of his doctrine’. The treatise on the Arrange-
ment of Words contains much that is technical, but much also
that may fairly be described as literary criticism. The general
character of this treatise, and of the other Scripta Rhetorica
of Dionysius, will appear more clearly from the description
to be given later.
The approximate order in which the ‘rhetorical’ writings
of Dionysius were written may be conjectured from the
numerous references which, in the course of them, he makes
from one to another. He never wearies of telling his readers
that this matter or the other has been, or is being, or will be
treated in a separate work*®. But singularly enough, he lets
fall no hint as to whether his History preceded, or followed,
his Critical Works. Nevertheless, though the rhetorician
never refers to the historian and the historian never refers to
the rhetorician, it is likely that most of the rhetorical writings
of Dionysius were composed at intervals during the two-and-
1 The fullest discussion of the authenticity of the Avs Rheforica will be found
in Sadous, De la Rhétorique attribuce @ Denys d@ Halicarnasse. In the best manu-
script (P 1741) the book is not ascribed to Dionysius except by a somewhat later
hand. But at the beginning of c. x (fol. 29%) there is the following important
note: TodTo Td wovdBiBrov oimar Acovicros 6 Atkapvacoeds cuvétatev 6 mporepos ”
peuvnrar yap ev a’T@ ws exdedouevov att@ Tod Mepi urmjoews. The doubt thus cast
on the earlier books is confirmed by express references in them to a period later
than that of Dionysius. Chapter x (and chapter xi) may possibly be his work,
but various points of language and precept make this unlikely, and the mention
_ (x. 19) of a proposed treatise wep! piujoews is no conclusive proof of Dionysian
authorship.—Dionysius’ definition of rhetoric has been otherwise preserved:
pnrepixh éore Sivams Texvixy miBavod NOyou ev mpayuare TodiTiKG, TéNos EXovTa
To eb Néyew (Usener, D. H. de Zmit., pp. 11—14).
2 These are some examples, chosen almost at random, of Dionysius’ practice in
this matter: de Lys. c. 12 fin., ibid. c. 14 fin., de Lsaeo c. 2, de adm. vi dic. in
Demosth. c. 58 fin., de Dinarcho c. 13, de Thucyd. c.1 fin., ad Amm.1 c. 3, ad
Amm. ii c. 1, ad Pomp. c. 2 init., c. 3 fin.
6 DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSUS
twenty years of which the Avchaeologia was, in his own view,
the principal fruit. The sequence of these writings among
themselves must have been somewhat as follows :—
Epistula ad Ammaeum Tf.
2. De Compositione Verborum.
3. De Antiquis Oratoribus: Iudicia de Lysia, ete.
4. De admiranda vi dicendi in Demosthene.
5. De Imitatione Libri I, 11.
6. Lpistula ad Cn. Pompeium.
7. De Imitatione Liber [1].
8. De Dinarcho.
9. De Thucydide.
10. Lpistula ad Ammaeum LI.
A few examples will show the sort of evidence available
for determining not the exact date (that being unknown in
every case) but the approximate sequence of these writings.
In the opening chapter of the Second Letter to Ammaeus, the
essays on the dzcient Orators are described as earlier produc-
tions than the comparatively recent treatise on 7hucydides,
from which a long extract is given in the second chapter.
Similarly in the third chapter of the Letter to Gnaeus Pompeius
there is an important allusion to the three books Ox Jmzta-
tion, from the second of which an extended quotation is made.
In the second chapter of the same Lef¢¢er a passage is repro-
duced from the treatise on the AZtic Orators'’. An interesting
question is raised by this last reference. Does Dionysius
mean us to understand that the De admir. vi dicendt in Demo-
sthene, which is the work in question, belongs to the same
series (wept Tov Attix@v pntopwy ad Pomp. c. 2 init., or rept
TOV apxyaiwv pntopov ad Amm. If. c. t init.) as the De Lysza,
De Isocrate, De Isaeo? It may be so, since Demosthenes was
certainly one of the six Attic orators included by Dionysius
in that series*. But the separate entry given above is con-
1 éy ry Twepl Tay ATTikwy Tpayyatela pnropwr, ad Ponip. c. 2 init.
* De Dinarcho c. 1 init., wept Aewdpxov Tod piropos ovdev eipnkws Ev Tots meEpt
Tay apxaiwy ypadeiow dia 7d pyre ebperny idlov yeyovévat xapaxTjpos Tov avdpa,
womep Tov Avoiay kal rov “Iooxpdrny Kal Tov “Iaatov, unre Tav eipnudvwy érépors
TeXewTHy, wamep Tov Anuocbévyn Kal rov Aisylvn kal <7rov> ‘Treplidnv tuets
2?
MSL ne RARY CRITIC.
/
venient as marking the fact that this essay stands apart
from the others alike in elaboration and incompleteness’. It
seems a likely inference from the various statements of
Dionysius that he wrote on Demosthenes (and indeed on
Lysias and the other lesser orators) at different times and
from many different points of view, not only analysing their
style but discussing such points as the genuineness or
spuriousness of the speeches commonly attributed to them.
In the De adm. vi dic. in Dem. c. 32 he seems to promise to
publish a set comparison between the style of Demosthenes
and that of Plato, in order to establish the superiority of the
former®. If he carried out his intention, the work has been
lost. Other missing books are the epi tis éxXoyhs Tov
ovowatwv promised ‘for next year’ (eis véwta, de Comp. c. 1);
the wmeép THs TodiTiKHs hirocodias (de Thucyd. c. 2); the repi
Tov oxnpatov (Quintil. Just. Ov. ix. 89); and the three books
of the De Lmitatione, which treatise appears as a matter of
convenience in the list given above’.
Kplvouev. Cp. de Antig. Orat., proem., ad fin. : érovrar 6€ of mapaday.Bavéuevor pyropes
Tpels wev Ex Tav mpecBuTépwy, Avoias Icoxpdrns Icatos, Tpets éx THY EmakLacayTwY
rovros, Anuoobévys ‘Trepidns Aicxivys, ods éyw Twv a\Nwy Hyodmar Kparlarous, Kal
SiatpeOncerar pev eis SUo cuvTdées 7) Mpayuarela, Thy dé apxnv amd Ta’Tys AjWerac
THs Umep Ta mpecBuTépwy ypapelans. de Tsaco c. 20 fin., ETépay GE apxhv Toujoopac
Tov Adyou mept Te Anuocbévous kai ‘Yrrepidov Kal tpirov Néywv Alcxivov. 7 yap On
TedevoTaTn pyropikh Kal Td Kparos Twy évaywriwy Noywv év TovToLs Tois dvdpdow
éouxey elvat.
1 Tt deals only (though very fully) with 7 Nextiny Anuoobévous dewdrns, or the
oratorical power of Demosthenes’ style, as distinguished from 7 mpayparixh Anuo-
obévous dewdrns, or his skzl/ 2x handling subject-matter ; the part treating of the
latter division of the subject is not extant. The title Ilept rs Nexrixjs Anuoabévous
dewdrnros (De admiranda vi dicendi in Denosthene) is due to Sylburg.
2 De adm. vi dic. in Dem. c. 32: Svvduevos & dv, ef Bovdoluny, kal Ta KaTa
mépos exarépas karopOwimara cceragew Kal decxview, 0ow KpeirTwy éoriv 7 Anuoobévous
héEts THs Wdarwvixis od udvov Kara 70 adnOwov Kal mpds ayavas émirjdecov (TovTo
yap ws mpds eidéras omolws amavtas ovdé Nbyou deity olwac), ddA Kal KaTa 7d
TpomeKov, epi 6 wahtora Sewods 6 Warwy elvac Soxe?, kal woddas Exwv apopuds Noywr
Tavray pev els Erepov Karpov dvaBadrouae Thy Oewplay, elmep mepiétTar mor xpdvos*
idiav yap ovk éxynow mepl airs cevéyKar mpayuatelav.
3 Further particulars may be sought in F. Blass De Dionysti Halicarnassensts
Scriptis Rhetoricis, and in H. Rabe Die Zettfolge der rhetorischen Schriften des
Dionys von Halicarnass (Rhein. Mus. N. F. XUV. pp. 147—151)-
§ DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSUS
IV. SEPARATE WORKS OF LITERARY CRITICISM.
(1) De Compositione Verborum.
It is not intended to keep closely to any conjectured
order of time in the following brief description of the extant
critical writings of Dionysius. The treatise De Compositione
Verborum, which it is convenient to take first because of its
able exposition of many of the most important rhetorical or
literary principles of Dionysius, is on any reckoning probably
later than the Fzrst Letter to Ammaeus, and is hardly the pro-
duction of a very young man. It has, indeed, been thought
that Dionysius speaks like an unmistakably old man when,
in the first chapter of the De Compositione, he makes a
promise ‘with the proviso “if heaven keeps us safe and
sound'.” But this expression is probably one of simple piety
only, and as such it has a parallel in another of the writings
of Dionysius. And in any case the treatise is earlier (though
probably only shortly so) than the De admir. vi dic. in
Demosth., which contains more than one reference to it*.
The De Compositione was an offering from Dionysius to his
pupil Melitius Rufus, who was celebrating his first birthday
after entering on man’s estate. The Greek title of the book
is wept cuvOécews dvopatar, On the Arrangement of Words*.
1 De Comp. Verb. c. 1: éxelvny méev obv Thy mpayyaretay els véwra, Taw wpats
rais atrats, mpocdéxou, Gedy juads puratrovTwy dowels Te Kai avdicous, el 6 more Nuw
dpa tovrov mémpwrar BeBaiws tuxetv: vuvi bé Hv TO daiporvioy éml vouv Hyayé ov
Tpayuatelay mpocdéxov.
2 De admir. vi dicendi in Denwosth. c. 58 fin.: éav 6€ cH&y 76 daudviov Huds,
kal mepl THs mpayyariKns avTod dewdrnros, Te bel Covos 7 Todde Kal Aavsactrorépov
Oewphuatos, ev Tots E&fs ypapnoomévas amodwaouEv goL TOY héyov.
3 hid. c. 49, ef 5é Tis dmatHoe Kal Tadr’ ert mabety Orn wor éxeEt, TOUS U7o-
pynuarispovs huav NaBdy, obs mepl Ths cwvbécews THY dvoudTuw Tempaywarevueba,
rdvra boa Trobe? Tay évOdbe mapadertopéven eicerar. ibid. c. 50, Tas d€ Tepl ToUTOU
Tod pépous rioters é€v Tots mepl Ths cwOésEws ypapetow amodedwKus ovK avaryKatov
nyouuar Kavravda éyeuv.
4 The full title is indicated in De admir. vi dic. in Demosth. c. 49 (as quoted in
the preceding note), rods trouvnuaticpods...ods mepi THs cvHécews TOV 6vomaTav
mempayparevjueba. The best English and French equivalent of otv@ecvs would be
composition, if the word had not so wide a range. As it is, avrangement or order
Home TeRARY CRITIC, 9
Dionysius starts with the proposition that, in the practice of
eloquence, there are two things to be considered, the ideas
(vonpara) and the words (dvouata) used to express them ; or,
to put the same thing in another way, there is the sphere of
subject-matter (0 mpayuatixos tomos), and the sphere of
expression (0 AexTLKOs TOTFOs). The latter of the two divisions
is more within the reach of ‘beardless striplings’ (ayevetwy
Kal petpaxior, de Comp. c. 1), who pursue it with eager
enthusiasm, than the former, which demands the maturity
of a riper age. A complete treatment of the AexTiKos ToTOs
will embrace not only the arrangement but the chotce of
words, and a book on this latter aspect of the subject is
promised for the succeeding year (c. 1)’. Taken together, éx-
oy? and cvvGecrs are thus intended to teach the great secret
of the use of the right word in the right place. Dionysius is
not only a preceptor who advocates the choice of the ‘ mot
propre, but also one who
‘D’un mot mis en sa place enseigne le pouvoir.’
In fact, he attaches greater importance to the latter requisite
than to the former. “Although the choice of words stands
first in the natural order, yet their due arrangement con-
tributes far more decidedly to pleasure, persuasion and
oratorical force®.’” The functions of the art of arrangement
are, “to place the words in the right order, to assign the
in English, and arrangement or despositioi in French, must serve. In Latin
coliocatio (cp. Cic. de Orat. iii. 171) might be used, as well as composztio.
1 From the De Comp. Verb., considered in connexion with his other undisputed
works, it is clear that Dionysius has in mind the following divisions and sub-
divisions :
A. 6 mpayyatiKxos TéTos.
J. etipeois. xplots.
Il. olkovopia.
B. 6 Nextixds Tézros.
I. 7 éxdNoyn TOv dvouatay.
(1) xupia Ppacts.
(2) TpomeKy KaTacKeu7.
Il. 7% ctvdeois Tov dvoudTwr.
2 De Comp. Verb. c. 2, ndovhy kai eB Kal xpdros év Noyous ovK dALywW KpeltTw
éxelyns EXEL.
ge) DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSUS
fitting ‘harmony’ to the members of the sentence, and to
divide the discourse into the proper periods'.” It is to be
noted that Dionysius does not, in our treatise, redeem his
promise to treat of the proper employment of periods and of
the due division of discourse into them. The diction used
to express our thoughts is of two kinds, verse and prose; it
is subject to metre or independent of it» The importance,
both in prose and in poetry, of the art of arrangement is
iliustrated by Dionysius (c. 3) from Homer and Herodotus.
The passage chosen from Homer is that of the Odyssey (xvi.
I—16) in which Odysseus as the guest of the swineherd is
(after the ancient fashion) about to break his fast at dawn,
when Telemachus appears in sight returning from his sojourn
in the Peloponnese. The incidents themselves are, says
Dionysius, “the simple and insignificant occurrences of every-
day life, but they are admirably described...... The words
charm and bewitch the ear....And yet they are [and this
tends to show that composition is even more important than
diction| the humblest and most ordinary words imaginable,
such as might be used off-hand by a farmer, or a fisherman,
or an artisan, or anybody else who is careless about elegant
speech®.” The passage quoted from Herodotus is that (Herod.
i. 8—10) in which Candaules, the Lydian king, conceives
the strange desire of revealing his wife disrobed to the eyes
of his friend Gyges, the better to convince him of her beauty.
1 De Comp. Verb. c. 2, ate 6H Tis suv Oécews Epya, Ta TE dvduaTa olkeiws Hetvat
mapad\nra, Kal Tots xwNols dmodotva THY Tpoc7jKovoay apuoviay, Kal Tals meprddo.s
diadaBet ef Tov N6yov. For the ck@Xov, see Blass AZ¢. Bereids. V1. IO5—ITI3.-
2 dare Tolvuwy maca déits, 7 onmalvouey Tas votoels, 7 Mev EupmeTpos, 7 Oé dueETpos,
de Comp. c. 3 init.
3 mpayuatia Nita Kal Biwrika, Hpunveupéva wrépev...€mayeTat Kal Kye Tas
akods...6ua yap Tay evtehecTaTow Te Kal TaTELWOTATWY dVOUAaTwY TéTNEKTAL TAaCA 7
Nééts, ofs dv Kal yewpyds, Kal adarroupyos, Kal xeporéxvys, Kal was 6 undeulay wWpay
Tou Névyew e} Trorovmevos, Ef Eroiuov NaBav éExpyoato, de Comp. c. 3. The passage
runs on: ovTe yap weradopai tives Ev adtois evyevets Evecow, ol’re Umaayal, ore
KaTaxpnoes, ore A\Xn TpomKy SiadXexTos ovdeuia, oVdE 67 yAGTTaL ToANaé TuVEs, OTE
téva 4} memonuéva dvéuatra. ‘That is to say, a refined simplicity is as effective, in
its place, as all the adornments of the so-called ‘artistic’ prose or poetry. It is
one of Dionysius’ great merits to have recognised and proclaimed this in a post-
classical era.
ASAI LERARY WRITLC. 11
The theme, as Dionysius remarks, is an ignoble and even
a hazardous one. But it has, he adds, been treated most
happily, and the narrative is better than the occurrence. This
result is, we are told, due not to the words, which are ordinary
words taken as they come, but to the skill with which they are
arranged}.
Still confining himself to Homer and Herodotus, Dionysius
(c. 4) makes some daring experiments with the poetry of the
former. Homer uses, he says, the complete heroic metre of
six feet, which is scanned by dactyls*. Some of these hexa-
meters are forthwith transmuted into two varieties of tetra-
meters, with consequences which are as disastrous as they are
meant to be. From Herodotus he takes the following passage
(Herod. i. 6), quoting it in the Attic dialect thus :—
Kpotcos nv Avédds pev yévos, ais dé ’AXvaTtTov, TUpavvos 6é
€Ovav tav évtos “AXvos ToTamovd: Os, péwy ao peonuBpias
petakév Svpwv te Kal Iladdayovar, éEinoe tpos Bopéav avepov
ets Tov Kvewov kadovpevoy Tovtov.
“T change the ‘harmony’ of this passage,” says Dionysius,
“and I shall find before me no longer an alluring and historical
style, but rather one that is direct and vehement®.” He then
rewrites the words as follows :-—
Kpoicos av vios ev “AdXvatTov, yévos d€ Avdds, TUpavvos 6€
1 In transcribing the passage from Herodotus, Dionysius has turned it into
Attic, ‘Sin order that no one may suppose that it is the dza/ect that gives the
narrative its charm” (iva uy Tis broAGB Thy SiddexTov eivar THs HOov7As alriay 77
defer, c. 3). The truth seems to be that, in this instance, the charm lies not so
much in the dialect, or indeed in the vaunted ovveots itself, as in the attitude of the
wrater’s mind as revealed in the entire narrative, style being interesting (here if
anywhere) as the revelation of personality. It has been well said that ‘‘in all the
greatest sculpture there breathes the unshamed and innocent surprise of a child
just waked from sleep” (Jebb, A¢ééc Orators, 1. p. xcvii). So with Herodotus and
this passage of his History. If we are to employ modern terms, we may well
speak of the zazveté of the author, but we should strike a false note if we were
tempted to speak of this story of his as 7zsgué, even though Dionysius, living in a
self-conscious age, does describe it as émixivduvov (the word rendered ‘ hazardous’
above).
2 rodro Td mérpov Nowikdy €or, EEdmovy, TéAELOV, KaTA Oda SaKTUAOY Baivduevor,
C4.
3 werarlOnuc THs AéEews TaUTNS THY apuoviay, Kal yernoeral jot oUKETL ETAywyLKoV
TO mAdopa, Ode igTopiKdy, GAN’ dphdv wadXov Kal évarywriov, C. 4.
12 DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSUS
tov évtos “AXvos totauod éOvarv: bs, amo peonuBplas péwv
peTa&d XUpwov cai Ladraycvor, eis Tov EvEewov xadovpevov
ToVvTOV Exdldwat pos Bopéav avEemov.
“ This style,” he proceeds, “would seem not to differ widely
from that of Thucydides (Thucyd. i. 24) in the words: *Ezi-
Sapuros éote TONS év SeEa elomdéovTe TOV “lovioy KoONTOV-
mpocotkovat de avTnv Tavravtior BapBapot, “INdXvpiKov EOvos.”
Dionysius now recasts the passage of Herodotus in another
way. “Again I will change the same passage, and give a
new form to it as follows :—
"AXvatTov peéev vios nv Kpoicos, yévos 5€ Avéos, Tav évTos
“AXvos totayod TUpavvos éOvev: Cs, ato peonpBpias pewv
Yvpov te Kai LladdXayovwv petakv, rpos Bopéav EEevow avewov
els TOV KaNOUpEVoV TovToy KvEevor.”
This is taken to represent the mincing, common, and
effeminate manner in which Hegesias arranges his sentences,
of which the following actual specimens are given: “ é&
ayabns éopths ayabnv adyouev addnv.”—< ato Mayvyotas eipt
THS pmeyarns Lurvrevs.”—“ ov yap puxpav eis OnBaiwyv vdwp
éem7ucev 0 Atovucos: nous péev yap éatt, Tovet Se pai-
vecOa.’ As will be seen more clearly later, Hegesias is
the pet aversion of Dionysius, to whose mind he represents
A sianism in its most odious form.
The praises of arrangement are (c. 4) summed up in a
happy comparison. Dionysius likens this invaluable art to
the magic transforming power of the Homeric Athéné, who
could at will present Odysseus to the view in the guise of a
beggar or as a princely warrior.
His general introduction thus completed, Dionysius takes
up, more specifically, such points as the order in which the
various parts of speech naturally come in a sentence (c. 5).
He admits that he had been inclined to entertain a@ priort
views on the question of grammatical rules, holding that
nouns should precede verbs, verbs adverbs, and so on'. But
1 He had, he tells us (c. 4 ad fin.), endeavoured to find some @vatxh adopyn in
such matters.
AS A LITERARY CRITIC. 13
he had proceeded, with that sound practical judgment which
distinguishes him, to test his theories in the light of Homer's
usage. He had then found them wanting. “Trial made
shipwreck of them all, and showed their utter worthlessness'.”
In the chapters which follow (cc. 6—g) he discusses some
details connected with the proper handling of words and
clauses, and with the employment of figures of thought.
Incidentally he remarks how the pathos of a passage in the
speech of the Plataeans (Thucyd. ili. 57) would vanish if
instead of “vpeis Te, © Aaxedarpovior, 7 wovn éeXmis, d€dyuev pw)
ov BéBatoe 777e” we were to read “ bpeis Te, © Aaxedaimorior,
dédupev pur) ov BEBaroe HTE, 7 wovn eX.” So with a sentence
of Demosthenes (de Cor. 119): “to XNaBetv ody Ta OLddpEeva
OmorNOYOY EVvVOMOY Eival, TO TOVTwWY YapLY aTrOSODVAaL TapaVvopLwV
ypade.’ Let the object, in each clause, be placed not first but
last, and the trenchant vigour appropriate to the law-courts
disappears : “ ouoroyeyv ody évvopov eivat TO NaPetiv Ta b.60-
peva, Tapavouwy ypade TO TOVTwY YapLY aTrobodrat.”
Chapters 10—20 treat of nobility (to «adXov) and charm
(7 7d50vn) in style, and of the means by which these qualities
may be attained. When nobility and charm are found united
in good writing, the ear is satisfied, just as is the eye when it
discerns these qualities in a picture or a statue; the eye is
then content and desires nothing more. The two qualities
are not, however, always found in combination. The style of
Thucydides and of Antiphon is eminently noble, but it is
not charming*. The style of Ctesias and of Xenophon is
charming in the highest degree, but not as noble as it should
have been. The composition (cvv@eors) of Herodotus unites
both these qualities; it is at once noble and charming
(c; 10):
Charm and nobility are themselves, in Dionysius’ judg-
ment, chiefly due to four things: melody, rhythm, variety, and
the propriety which attends these three*®. Susceptibility to
1 ravra 6€ radra dtecadevocev 7 Teipa, Kal ToU undevds aia aTéPnyE, C- 5.
* Dionysius means that the nobility is austere rather than winning.
3 wédos, Kal pubuds, kai weraBor?, kal TO mapaxoNovdody Tots Tpicl rovTas mpérov,
c. 11. Later in the same chapter 76 oixe@oy is used as an equivalent of 7d mpézov.
14 DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSUS
harmonious sounds may be regarded as a sort of human
instinct :—
“*Who is there that is not attracted and enthralled by one melody,
while he remains entirely unaffected by another,—that is not capti-
vated by this rhythm, but offended by that? Ere now in popular
houses of entertainment, thronged by a mixed and uncultured multi-
tude, I have seemed to observe that all of us have a sort of natural
appreciation for good melody and good rhythm. I have seen an
accomplished harpist, of high repute, hissed by the assembled public
because he struck a single wrong note and so spoiled the melody.
I have seen, too, a flute-player, who handled his instrument with
the practised skill of a master, suffer the same fate because he blew
faultily or, through not compressing his lips, produced a harsh sound
or so-called ‘broken note’ as he played. Nevertheless, if the amateur
critic were bidden to take up the instrument and himself to render
any of the pieces with whose performance by professionals he found
fault, he would be unable to do it. Why so? Because this is an
affair of skill, in which we are not all partakers ; the other of feeling,
which is nature’s universal gift to man. I have noticed the same
thing occur in the case of rhythms. Everybody chafes and fumes
when a performer strikes an instrument, takes a step, or sings a note,
out of time, and so destroys the rhythm'.”
Now the difference between music and oratory, Dionysius
proceeds to say, is simply one of quantity, not of quality. The
speaking voice is confined to a narrower compass of notes
than is the singing voice, and does not observe intervals
1 De Comp. c. 11, Tis yap €or, ds odx bb pev Ta’rns THs wEehwdlas ayeTaL Kal
yonreverar, Up éTépas Sé Tivos ovdév maaxer ToLOUTOv; Kal bd mev TOUTWY TOY
pvOucdv oixecoirat, bd dé To’Twy dioxretrac; nbn 5 eywye Kal év Trois roNvavOpwro-
Taro Hedrpos, & cuumAnpot mavTodamds Kal &movoos bxXos, doa KaTapahev, ws
duoikn Tis éotly amdvTav juav olkerdrns mpos evpédecdy Te Kal EvpvOuiay, KLBapioTHY
Te ayabdv, opddpa evdoximodvTa, (dmv OopuBnbévTa jrd Tov mAHHous, OTe ulav Xopdnv
actuguwvoy expovoe, kal pOerpe TO wédos, Kal avAynTHVY, WETa Tis Akpas ELews Kpwmevov
tots épydvos, kal a’to TodrTo wabdvtTa, Ore dotupwvov eumvetoas, 7) Un Wlécas TO
oTéua, Opvtvynov 7 THY Kadoupévny éexuéhecav nidyoe. Kairor el Tis Kahéoere TOV
idudsrqv TovTw TL, wy eveKdde Tots TEXViTALS WS NuapTnuUeVeY, avToV Torjca haBdyvTa
ra opyava, ovx av Stvatro. Th Oh wore; Ort ToOTO wer EmcaTHuns eoTly, HS ov mavTES
wereAnpapuev’ exevo O€ mdbous, 6 madow amédwxey 7 plows. 70 d€ avTO Kai éml TaV
pvbuayv ywouevov Ebeacdunv, aua mdavtas dyavakxtodvras Kal ducapecroumévous, bre
Tis ] Kpolow, 7 Kwnow, n pwvnv, ev douppeTpos TojoatTo xpovots, Kal Tovs pubuods
adpaviceey,
Aid PATE RARY CRITE. 1
ur
less than the semitone. In fact, the speaking voice is melo-
dious, but it is not melody; it is rhythmical, but it is not
rhythm (evpeds...€upedys, eUpvOuos...€vpu0pos).—The ques-
tion of variety (weraBory) is treated next. Variety will be
aided by a large vocabulary, one which does not disdain
common words. “There is, | maintain, no part of speech (used
to denote any thing or person) so low, or sordid, or coarse, or
otherwise obnoxious, that it will find no fit place in literature.
My advice is to bring out such words in composition with a
bold and manly confidence, in accordance with the practice of
Homer, in whose poems the commonest words are found'.”
A knowledge of the nature and powers of the letters of the
alphabet (ypappara) will also contribute to variety of style
(c. 14). To illustrate his point, Dionysius enters upon a
detailed and highly technical exposition, based upon the
phonetics of his time. He gives the divisions into vowels
(dovievta, pwvai) and consonants (odor); semi-vowels
(jpidwva) and mutes (a@pwva); short vowels (Spaxéa), long
(waxpa), and common (diypova); aspirated consonants (dacéa),
unaspirated (Yura), and common or medial (xowd, péeoa).
About individual letters many interesting remarks are made.
The euphoniousness (70 e¥pevor, TO evnxXov) of the vowels is,
in descending order, as follows: a, 7, w, v, 4. The method of
producing these vowels is described with some minuteness.
Among the consonants, % and p are warmly commended,
while o is sfigmatised as “a graceless and disagreeable letter,
and one which is decidedly offensive if used too often. Sibi-
lation seems better to suit a wild beast’s utterance than that
of a rational being. Accordingly, some of the ancients used
it sparingly and guardedly. There are, indeed, cases in which
entire odes have been composed without a single sigma*.”
1 De Comp. c. 12, ovdev yap otrw rareviv, 7 puTapdy, 7 utapov, 9 aAXnY Twa
dvoxépecav exov ececOal pyuc Abyou pdprov, @ oHuaiveral TL Toma H wpayua, 6
pndeulav eer xwpav emirnociay év Néyous. Tapakehevouat dé év TH ouvOéoer TioTEv-
ovras dvdpelws mavy Kal TePappyKdrws alta expéepew, ‘Ouhpw Te wapadelymare Xpw-
pevos, wap’ @ kal 7a evreNéoTara Kelra TOY dvoudrwr, Kal Anuogbéver, kai ‘Hpodé7w,
Kal Tots &\Xows, GY OALyov UorEpoy uynoOjoopua.
2c. 14, dyape dé Kai dndés 7d o, Kai ef Teovdcete opbdpa Ave?’ Anpiwsdovs yap
16 DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSUS
Passing a little later (c. 17) to the various rhythms, Diony-
sius distinguishes the following varieties of metrical feet
(modes, puv@mol) :—
dugvUANaBou TptavrAAaBoe
|
| '
UL NYEMOV, TUPPLYLOS vu xopetos, TeLBpaxus
—— oTrovdetos | —=-—-— podoTTos
v— ltapBos _ vu apdiSpaxyus
—v Tpoxaios | UU avatraictos
—vv ddKTuXOS
— U— KpNTLKOS
Baxxetos
| Uv vroBakyeios
|
|
¢
The dignity, or meanness, of each of these feet is declared
and illustrated'.
On the general question of the illustrations employed by
Dionysius it may here be remarked that in the De Composztione
he favours verse examples, while the subject-matter of the
rest of his critical writings leads him more commonly to draw
from prose sources. Where he quotes prose illustrations in the
De Composttione, they are usually of a striking kind. Inc. 18,
for instance, when exemplifying the power of rhythm, he cites
Thucyd. ii. 35 (of wey wodrXot Tav évOade dn ElpNnKOT@Y ETraL-
vodot Tov TpocbévTa THO VvOpw TOV AOYoY TOVSE, WS KANOV ETL TOLS
€x TOV TOMMY OaTTomévolts ayopevedOat avTov); Plat. Menex.
236 D (Epyo pev nut ofd éyovar Ta TpoTHKOYTA chiow avTots,
GV TUXOVTES TopevovTar THY elwapuevny Topeiav); and De-
mosth. De Cor. init. (7pdtov pév, 6 avdpes “AOPnvator, Tots Oeots
EVXOMAL TAGL Kal Tacals Oonv EvVOLaY EXwY EywW SLATEAG TH) TE
kal adNdoyou “adov 7 Aoyexis EpamrrecGat Soxel Pwvijs 6 suprypds. TeV yoy madaray
oravins éexpavrd Tives abTw kal mepuNayuevws* eici dé of dciyuous @das OAas Errotour.
The line of the Medea (€owod o’, ws icacw ‘EXAjqvwr boo, 476) is a well-known
example of reiteration of the o in order to denote hissing hate. ¢ although a
compound of o, does not share its disfavour. It stands, according to Dionysius,
for o6 (not 6s: cp. cupicdw=cupifw, Abjvate= AOjvacde), and the o was probably
sounded as in the French ‘chose’ or ‘douze.’
1 His analysis should be compared with that given in the chapter of Aristotle
(Rhet. iii. 8) which deals with the subject of rhythm. See p. 40 n. 4 infra.
SAY LITERARY CRITIC, 17
moder Kal TacWw viv Toca’Tnv UTapEar por Tap pay eis
TOUTOY TOV aywva).
But it is from the poets, and especially from Homer, that
he adduces, in this treatise, most of his proofs and illustra-
tions. He finds (c. 16) a crowning instance of Homer’s power
of investing even the most unpromising materials with beauty
in that passage of the //zad (ii. 494 ff.) in which he enumerates
the towns of Boeotia. In the same chapter he quotes, with
noteworthy comments showing the zest of his enjoyment and
the judiciousness of his admiration, such lines as
» & tev é€x Oaraporo Tepippav Unvedoreva
"Aprémide ixéAn He Xpvon “Adpoditn.
Od. xvii. 36.
Anji 8) tote Toiov “AToAXwVOS Tapa Popo
dolvixos véov epvos avepxopevov evonca.
Od. vi. 162.
ws 8 Ore yelpappor ToTamol Kat perdu péovTes,
és puoyayKetav cupBardetov dBpipov vdwp.
ERO hie wees
aviv &¢ Sim pap was WoTE GKUNAaKAS TOTL yaly
KoTT * €x & éyKkédaros yapacis pée, deve 6€ yatar.
Ods ix.7 280.
Similarly in c. 15 he quotes:
nioves Boowaw épevyouevns ados €Ew’.
TT, xNii< 265.
Kindo d€ otevaywr Te Kal edivev odvrysct,
xepal Whradowr.
Odie ALS.
ovd el Kev para ToANa Tao. Exaepyos “A7O\NwY
mpoTpoxurivoonevos Tatpos Avos aiyoxovo.
Text, 52:20,
Nor does he omit (in c. 20) to give due honour to the
famous lines of the Odyssey :—
1 Dionysius’ felicitous comment on this line is, TH Tapextace Ta guNAaBGy Tov
dmavorov éudaivew Boudduevos WxXov, de Comp. Cc. 17.
R. 2
DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSUS
~
oe)
GXN’ OTE pwédXOL
akpov vmepBaréev, TOT aTooTpéeacKe KpaTaus’
avOis éreita Tédovde KUANiVOETO AGas avatdyns.
Od. xi. 5096.
“Does not,’ he asks, “the structure of the words roll
downhill together with the ponderous rock, or rather does
not the speed of the narration outstrip the stone’s career?
Methinks it does'.”
The concluding part of the treatise is devoted to two
principal topics: the varieties of style (cc. 12—24), and the
relations of prose to verse and of verse to prose (cc. 25, 26).
Of style (or more strictly, of modes of composition) there are
three kinds: the austere (avoTnpa dppovia, avoTnpa avvOects),
the smooth or florid (yAagdupa 7 avOnpa), and the middle
(xown)?. The different styles are characterised at some length
and their chief representatives named. Among the repre-
sentatives of the austere style are Antimachus of Colophon
and Empedocles in epic poetry, Pindar in lyric poetry,
Aeschylus in tragedy, Thucydides in history, Antiphon in
oratory (c. 22)*. The smooth or florid style is represented by
Hesiod, Sappho, Anacreon, Simonides, Euripides, Ephorus,
Theopompus, Isocrates. The actual examples of this style are
drawn from Isocrates and Sappho, and it is in this connexion
that Dionysius cites the latter’s Hymn to Aphrodite (c. 23).
The middle style unites the excellences of the two others. Its
1 odxi cuyKaraxex’tNoTar TH Bdper THs wérpas h TeV dvoudtwr ctyOects, uaAov
dé EpOaxe THv Tod AlBov Popay ro Tis amayyeNas Taxos; Euovye Soxet, de Comp.
c. 20. With the last clause cp. 7. ty. c. 27, vuvi & &pOaxev dgvw Tov ueTaBalvovra
7] TOU NOyou weTaBacts.
2 «<The three apuovia, or styles of composition, distinguished by Dionysius,
must not be confused with the three: Aéfers, or styles of dzction, which he dis-
tinguishes in his essay on Demosthenes, cc. 1—3. The apyovla refer, of course,
to the putting together of words; the Né£ers, to the choice of words. As to dé€exs,
Dionysius recognises (1) an elaborate diction, which employs farfetched and unusual
words, é&n\\aypuévn, mepit7y éés, of which Thucydides is the great example:
(2) a smooth and plain diction, hur, apedns éks, best represented by Lysias:
(3) a mtxed diction, puxtn Kai ovvOeros é&s, of which the type is Isocrates.”
Jebb, Attic Orators, 1. 21 n. 4.
* To illustrate the features of this style, Dionysius analyses a dithyramb of
Pindar and the opening (cc. 1, 2) of the History of Thucydides.
AS tL LERARY CRITTE. 19
representatives are: Homer, Stesichorus, Alcaeus, Sophocles,
Herodotus, Democritus, Plato, Aristotle, Demosthenes (c. 24).
During his discussion, in c. 25, of the relations between
poetry and prose Dionysius proclaims himself, in a curious
and characteristic way, the hierophant of mysteries no less
sacred and hidden than those of Eleusis. “These matters
resemble mysteries, and cannot be divulged to the crowd.
I should not, therefore, be guilty of impertinence were I to
invite those only who are initiated to approach the rites
of style, while bidding the profane close the gates of their
ears.” He then expounds the important principle that
prose should be metrical, rhythmical and melodious, and yet
not be metre, rhythm, or poem. In the last chapter (c. 26)
he treats the converse question how a poem or ode can re-
semble fine prose. Variety is hampered in poetry by the
requirements of metre ; this is particularly the case in heroic
and iambic poetry. Lyric poetry has greater freedom, as
may be seen in Simonides’ Ode on Danae, which Dionysius
transcribes and thus preserves (together with the wonderful
poem of Sappho which he has previously quoted) for future
ages.
(2) De Oratoribus Antiquis.—De admiranda vi dicendi
in Demosthene.—De Dinarcho.
If the general principles on which the literary criticism of
Dionysius rests can be most conveniently inferred from a
detailed study of the De Compositione Verborum, their appli-
cation is nowhere seen to greater advantage than in the
various essays devoted to the leading Attic Orators. The
question of the uncertain title of the De Aztegquis Oratoribus
or De Atticis Oratoribus, has been mentioned already*. From
1c, 25, uvornpiows wev ody Zorxev 76n Taba, Kai ovK els moAdovs old TE éorw
exp€petOar* war’ ovdk av elny poprikés, ef mapaxadolyy, ols Aéuus éoriv, jew emi Tas
Teeras ToU Néyou, Oipas 5” ériHécOar Néyouut Tals dkoais Tos BESnovs.
2 pp. 6, 7 supra (together with the notes). It isclear from the prefatory remarks
of Dionysius himself (de Antig. Or., proem., c. 5) that he intends, if permitted
(av éyxwpn), to write also mepl Trav icropiKav.
20 DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSUS
the passages then quoted in the notes it will also have been seen
that Dionysius divided his treatise into two sections, the first
including three earlier (Lysias, Isocrates, Isaeus), the second
three later orators (Demosthenes, Hyperides, Aeschines). The
De Lysia, De Isocrate, and De Isaeo are extant, while the De
Hyperide and De Aeschine have been lost. As already stated,
the extant essay on Demosthenes may, or may not belong to
this series. If we could recover the lost introduction to it, we
should possibly find that the essay was issued as an enlarged
edition of an earlier work. The De Dinarcho (although
grouped here for convenience) undoubtedly belongs to an
altogether different series*. It is well known that Dionysius
was either ignorant of, or (as is more probable) ignored, the
so-called ‘Attic Canon’ of Ten Orators.
The three essays devoted to Lysias, Isocrates, and Isaeus
are modelled on an identical plan,—one which comprises
a few particulars of the life of each orator, an estimate of
his style (under such headings as NextiKds Toros, exoyn
ovopaTav, avvGects, apeTai THs NEEEws, etc.), a similar estimate
of his skill in dealing with his subject-matter (the headings
here being mpayyatixos ToT0S, eUpects, oiKoVomla, etc.), some
comparisons of one orator with another, and a number of
illustrative extracts. The object of Dionysius, in the writings
here under discussion, was “not to complete a set of bio-
graphies or essays, but to establish a standard for Greek
prose, applicable alike to oratory and to every other branch
of composition. He considers the orators, accordingly, less as
individual writers than as representatives of tendencies. He
seeks to determine their mutual relations, and, with the aid
of the results thus obtained, to trace a historical develop-
ment®.”
Largely through the influence of the book just quoted,
that portion of the literary criticism of Dionysius which
gathers round the Attic Orators is better known to English
1 This interesting suggestion is made in Vol. v. p. 363 of the Azstotre de la
Littérature grecque of MM. A. and M. Croiset.
2 Cp. p. 6 n. 2 supra.
3 Jebb, Attic Orators, 1. \xv.
AS A ‘LITERARY CRITIC. 21
students than any other. Consequently no great space need
here be given to this part of his literary work. Some of the
chief points in his singularly happy estimate of Lysias will
be recalled when it is mentioned that he praises him for such
qualities as his purity of expression, his gift of characterisation
and his unfailing propriety, his vividness and his inimitable
charm}.
To Isocrates also high praise is awarded on certain
sides. Dionysius discerns not only the great importance of
Isocrates in the evolution of Greek prose style, but also his
essential nobility of aim. With regard to this latter charac-
teristic he says, “the strongest exhortations to virtue are to
be found in the speeches of Isocrates. I maintain that those
who would learn the secret of patriotism, not in part only
but in its fulness, should have this orator at their fingers’
ends sace.. He shows (sc. in one of his speeches) that it is not a
large fleet of warships, nor Greeks governed by force, that
make a country great, but righteous aims and the succour of
the wronged”.’ At the same time he is quite alive to such
weak points of Isocrates as his excessive regard for smooth-
ness of style and a pleasant cadence. “The thought is often
the slave of rhythmical expression, and truth is sacrificed to
elegance......Now the natural course is for the expression to
follow the ideas, not the ideas the expression*.” Elsewhere
he condemns his tameness and his verbosity: “ He cannot
move his hearers when he wishes it, and for the most part he
does not even wish it...... His style [in a certain passage]
should have struck home like a blow. As a matter of fact,
1 The references to the De Lysza are: c. 2 (kaBapds éore Thy Epunveiay Tavu
kal THs Arrixhs yNwrTys apioTos Kavwv: cp. Td Kabapoy Tay dvoudTwy and 7 axpiBea
Ths Suahéxrou in c. 13, where a general summary is given), c. 8 (7omotia), c. g (7d
mpétov), c. 7 (evapyea), c. 11 (xaprs).
2 De Isocrate c. 4, kpdtira yap 67 wadevwata mpos aperhv év rots’ Icoxpdrous
éorw ebpev Noyos. Kal éyuryé Pyuc xpHvat Tods uEAAovTas ov MEpos Te THs ToNTLK|S
duvduews aN’ BAnY abrhy KrjcacOar TovTov éxew Tov pHropa dia xEipds. zbid. c. 7,
émdeixvural Te ws ovx ai modal Tpijpecs oS" of wera Blas apxduevor” EXAnves weyadny
Tovovot THv moAW, GAN’ ai Sixkaral Te mpoarpécers Kai TO TOls AdiKoUMEevars Bonfetvy.
3 rbid. c. 12, SovevEr yap 7 didvoia ToANAKLs TO PvPuG Tis NéEews Kai ToD KouWoU
Nelrerac TO aNnOuworv...... BovNeTac 5 H ios Tots vonuacw Erecbar Thy Né&w, ov
7H réEec TA vonuata. Cp. c. 2 ibid.
22 DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSUS
it issupple, and smooth, and glides gently through the ear like
aus”
The significance of Isaeus, no less than of Isocrates, as a
factor in the development of Greek prose style is fully re-
cognised by Dionysius. “If I were asked why I have included
Isaeus, imitator as he is of Lysias, I should give as my reason
that in his speeches are to be sought (as it seems to me) the
germs and first-beginnings of the oratorical power of Demo-
sthenes, which is universally regarded as the height of per-
fection’.” But highly as Isaeus is esteemed by Dionysius, he
is in one particular rated lower than Lysias. His speeches
do not seem so xzatural as those of his predecessor. “Any-
one reading the narrative passages of Lysias, far from
suspecting art or trickery, would rather discern the promp-
tings of nature and truth, overlooking the simple fact that
the imitation of nature is the highest triumph of art......
Lysias (so it seems to me) pursues reality, Isaeus art;
the one aims at charm, the other at intensity®.’—It may
be added here that though the essays on Aeschines and
Hyperides have been lost, some estimate of the former
orator will be found in De Jmuzt. [/. Epit. c. 5, of the latter in
the same chapter of the De /mzt. Epit. and also in the De
Dinarcho, cc. 1, 6, 7.
1 De admir. vi dic. in Dem.c. 18, wabaive re ob divarat Tobs akpowmevous,
oméca BovheTat, Ta ToANa Ge OVE BoveTa. zhid. Cc. 20, Tpaxetay yap Eder Kal
mikpay elvac kal wAnyH Te WapamAhovov movetv. 1 6 eat vypa Kal 6uady kal Womep
atoy aWopyri dua 77s axons péovca. Much excellent criticism of Isocrates is to be
found in c. 2 and cc. 16—20 of the above treatise. (For the word vypa cp. 7. ty.
XXXIV. 3.)
2 De Isaeo c. 20, Tov 6é 64 Tpirov Ioatov et Tis porTd pe Tivos Evexa mpooebEeunr,
Avoiou 6) (y\wrhy bvra, Ta’rny ay alte galnv thy aitlav, br wor doxel THs Anuo-
cbvous Sewdrntos, jv ovbels éorw bs ov TeNELOTATHY aTacGy olerar yevéoBat, Ta
oméppata Kal Tas apxas ovTos 6 avnp mapacxetv.—To Dionysius Lysias is important
as the deau idéval of the adroit advocate, Isocrates as the most eminent of the
panegyrists, Isaeus as marking a stage in the transition to Demosthenes.
> De TIsaeo c. 16, Tob Avolov péev 67 Tis advaywhoKkwy Tas Oinyrjoets ovdev ay
bmodaBor NéyerOar kata Téxy nv 7 Tovnpiay, ANN’ ws | Pvats Kai H adjGea Hépa, adTd
ToUTO ayvoay THs Téxvys, OTL TO pLpnoacba Thy Pvow airAs ueyioTov Epyov 7.
Cole... OTe wor Goxet Avoias wev Thy ad7pOevay Sudkew uwaddov, Icatos dé rHv Téxvnr,
kal 6 pev croxagerOa Tot xaprevTms, 6 6é Tov dewas.—The superior naturalness of
the proems of Lysias is well exemplified in ce. 7 ff.
Ee
AS AGLITERARY CRITIC,
tN
we
Dionysius refers to the supremacy of Demosthenes among
orators as a universally admitted fact’. He also emphasizes
his own view that, among the orations of Demosthenes, the
De Corona holds the foremost place*. Something of the same
sort might, truly enough, be said of Dionysius’ own essay on
Demosthenes. In its own way, and within its own limits, it
well deserves the title of ‘masterpiece’ which has been ac-
corded to it®*. Into none of his studies of the Greek Orators has
Dionysius thrown himself with more vigour and enthusiasm.
It is his delight to show that Demosthenes “ disdained to be an
imitator of any single style or man. He saw that they were
all half-finished and incomplete, and from them all he chose
and wove together the best and most useful elements, and
fashioned one language out of many......His style resembles
the fabled Proteus of our ancient poets*.” Moreover, the
effect of his speeches on their readers is wonderful, and the
effect on their original hearers must have been more wonderful
still: “When I take up one of his speeches, I am entranced
and carried hither and thither, stirred now by one emotion,
now by another. I feel distrust, anxiety, fear, disdain, hatred,
pity, good-will, anger, jealousy. I am agitated by every
passion in turn that can sway the human heart, and I am
like those who are being initiated into wild mystic rites......
When we who are centuries removed from that time,
and are in no way affected by the matters at issue, are
thus carried off our feet and mastered and borne wherever
the discourse leads us, what must have been the feelings
excited by the speaker in the minds of the Athenians and
the Greeks generally, when living interests of their own were
1 Cp. De Zsaeo c. 20 (quoted on preceding page).
2 De Conip. c. 25, €répov (Oyou)...... TOU mavu npunvetcbar datuoviws doxovyTos
Tov wep Kryowpartos, dv éeyw Kparicrov dmopaivouat mavTwy NOywr. Cp. De
admir. vi dic. in Dem. c. 14, obTos yap 57 mor Soke? KadNory Kal meTplwrary KaTa-
oxeun AéEews KeXpHoOat 6 NOyos.
3 Blass, Griech. Bereds., p. 180.
4 De adm. vi dic. in Dem. c. 8, évds meév ovbevds j&iwce yevérGat (prAwWTIs obrE
Xapaxrhpos oi're dvdpos, nucépyous Twas amavras olduevos elvac kal dreXels, ef amdvTwy
o a’ray boa xpdriora Kal xpynowmwrara jy éxreyduevos cuvipaiwe kai ulay EK TONG
OsdNeKTov ameTéNEL......... ovdev diadNarrovcay Tod mewuOevuévouv mapa Tots apxatots
tmomrats IIpwréws,
24 DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSUS
at stake, and when the great orator, whose reputation stood so
high, spoke from the heart, and laid bare the inmost feelings
that inspired his soul?.”
From Demosthenes to Deinarchus (6 xpi@wos Anpo-
aGévns) is a long step downwards. But this does not
prevent Dionysius’ account of Deinarchus from being, of its
kind, an excellent piece of work. The design of the series
to which it belongs was in the main biographical. Not
Deinarchus only, but Lysias (cp. de Lysia, cc. 12, 14), Isaeus
(cp. de Jsaeo, c. 2), and other orators, were included in the
set. The essay on Deinarchus proves at once the thorough-
ness and the independence of the studies of Dionysius. The
subject had, he tells us, been faultily treated by previous
authorities, and he had therefore to rely upon himself. He
gives brief particulars of the life, and some estimate of the
style, of Deinarchus. But his chief aim is to compile a list
of that orator’s speeches, discriminating the spurious from
the genuine. The speeches are, therefore, classified under
heads as follows: (1) genuine (yvnovor) public speeches,
(2) spurious (yevderiypador) public speeches, (3) genuine
private speeches, (4) spurious private speeches. In mention-
ing each speech care is taken to give (for its better identi-
fication) not only its title or description, but also the words
with which it opens. Particular speeches are rejected by
Dionysius on grounds of chronology or of inferior workman-
1 De adm. vi. dic. in Dem. c. 22, 6rav 6€ <Tdv> Anuocbévous Twa AaBw Abyor,
evGovote) TE Kai devpo KaKEloe Ayoua, waOos ETepoy E& ETEpov weTahauBdvwY, aTisTOY,
aywvidy, ded.ws, katappovay, uic@v, éMeGv, edvody, dpytfouevos, POovGv, amavtTa Ta
waOn peTaauBdvwrv, doa Kpately mépuKkev avOpwrivns yywuns’ diadépev Te ovdev
€u“auT@ doko Tav Ta uNTpwa Kal Ta KopuBavTiKa Kal doa TovTOLs TapamAHod éoTL,
TENOULEVWV...... drrov yap jmets ol TocoUTOY amnpTnuevor Tots Xpovots Kal ovHev mpos Ta
mpayuata memovObres olTws brayoueba Kal Kpatovmeba Kal, Oot ToT ay NUas O Novos
ayn, Topevoueba, mas Tore AOnvatol re Kai oi Go” EAAgves HyovTo Urb Tod avdpos
éml Tav adnOwav Te kal ldiwy dyavwv, abtod NéyorTos exelvou Ta EauTOU pmeTa THS
aiicews, 7s elxe, Thy a’tomabeay Kai TO TapdoTnua THS YuXAS arodeckvunevov.—
Certain passages in the De adm. vi dic. in Dem. (e.g. c. 43) and in the De Comp.
Verb. (e.g. c. 23) prove that Dionysius was sensitive to matters connected with
rhythm, and with the avoidance or allowance of hiatus, which might easily escape
a modern reader. His hints have, indeed, led in modern times to the formulation
of more definite rules than he has himself transmitted to us: cp. Sandys, Crceronis
ad M. Brutum Orator, pp. xxvii, xxviil.
AS A LITERARY CRITIC. 26
ship. In the result, 29 public and 31 private orations are
assigned to Deinarchus, while the remainder (numbering more
than 27: the loss of the conclusion of the essay precludes a
more precise statement) are declared to be spurious. It may
be added that, where (as is the case not with Deinarchus but
with other orators) modern criticism has had an opportunity
of forming an independent opinion, it has usually concurred
in the views of Dionysius on questions of authenticity.
(3) Ep. ad Ammaeum I.
In the De Dinarcho we see Dionysius at his best as a
literary historian, a réle which (as already indicated) fits
him far better than that of the general historian. It is a
question of literary history also that forms the subject of
Ep. ad Amm. I. Of this Epistle, as it is one of the three
edited in this volume, a short summary, chapter by chapter,
may conveniently be offered here.
SUMMARY.
c. 1. A Peripatetic philosopher, whose name is not given, had
undertaken to prove that the Reforic of Aristotle was earlier than
the speeches of Demosthenes, who owed his success as an orator to
the observance of its precepts.
c. 2. Dionysius, in a letter addressed to his friend Ammaeus,
proposes to refute this assertion.
c. 3. He desires to show that Demosthenes was at the height of
his fame, and had delivered his most celebrated speeches, at the
time when Aristotle wrote his Rhesoric.
c. 4. The dates of the birth of Demosthenes and of the delivery
of twelve of his speeches are assigned. All these dates are earlier
than the end of the Olynthian War (348 B.c.).
1 A good example of the application of the chronological test may be quoted
from the De Dinarcho c. 13, where the dry conclusion ‘ Deinarchus was not ten
years old at the time’ is noteworthy: IIpds Ieéiéa mapaypapy. ‘kata rov vomov
TovTov.’ ovros 6 Adyos eipnra Emi ApicTodjuov dpxovTos, ws €E abrov Tov Nébyou
yiverat SHAov. of pev yap els Sduov dmocradévres KAnpodXo Kara TovTov Tov
dpxovra dmeorddnoav, ws Piddyopos év rats ioroplas Neyer. Aelvapxos 5° obrw
Oéxavov eros Tnvikatra ecixe.
26 DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSUS
c. 5. Annals of the life of Aristotle.
ce. 6, 7. In the RZetoric Aristotle refers to his Topics, Analytics,
and Methodics ; and this of itself is enough to show that he was no
stripling, but a man of mature years, when he wrote the former work.
c. 8. Aristotle mentions the Olynthian War in the Third Book
of the Pheforic.
c.g. According to the historian Philochorus, this war took
place in the archonship of Callimachus, 349 B.c.—Therefore the
twelve speeches in question (four against Philip, three on Greek
affairs, and five written for the law-courts) must be anterior to the
Rhetoric.
c. 10. The same assertion may be made with regard to twelve
other speeches of Demosthenes which fall between the Olynthian
war and that which broke out in 339 B.c. and ended with the battle
of Chaeronea in the following year. The dates of these speeches are
given.
c. 11. ‘The comparison of a passage of the Rhetoric (11. 23) with
passages drawn from the dzza/s of Philochorus and from the
De Corona shows that the treatise of Aristotle was subsequent to
the archonship of Lysimachides (339 B.c.), and therefore subsequent
to this second set of twelve speeches.
c. 12. More than this, the Rhetoric was subsequent to the
De Corona itself (330 B.c.). This appears, according to Dionysius,
from a passage of the Rfetortc (1. 23) in which Aristotle actually
alludes to the De Corona.—General conclusion. The orator has not
derived from the philosopher the art with which his speeches are
written. Rather, the philosopher has based his Aheforic on an
examination of the works of Demosthenes and of the orators
generally.
_The above short sketch of its contents, if supplemented by
the Chronological Table to be given later, will show that this
Letter to Ammaeus, short as it seems in comparison with
some of the more elaborate essays of its author, is yet founded
on solid study and wide research. In his eager desire to check
those Peripatetics of his day who were inclined to exalt the
influence of Aristotle beyond all due measure, Dionysius is
betrayed sometimes into overstatement and inaccuracy. But
to appreciate his investigation at its true worth, we have only
to consider what gaps in our knowledge its loss would have
MS AVIATERAR Y GRITTC. 27
meant. Its contributions to the chronology of Demosthenes’
speeches, and of Aristotle's life, are particularly important.
(4) Ep. ad Cn. Pompeium, and the De Imitatione.
The contents of the /p. ad Cn. Pompeium can be indicated
very briefly. The Letter is specially interesting because of
the light it throws on Dionysius’ attitude towards Plato,
a point to which we must recur in a moment.
SUMMARY.
c. 1. Dionysius has received a letter from Pompeius, expressing
surprise at the treatment of Plato in the otherwise admirable works
of the author. Dionysius explains his attitude, and undertakes to
defend it. If he has resorted to the method of comparison, he has
not done so unnecessarily or without good precedent.
c. 2. A passage characterising the style of Plato is reproduced
from the De admiranda vi dicendi in Demosthene (cc. 5, 6). From
the judgment there pronounced Dionysius cannot recede. He
seeks, indeed, to show that Pompeius, as well as he, recognises
the occasional lapses to which genius is subject.
c. 3. Pompeius has sought, further, to learn the views of
Dionysius with reference to Herodotus and Xenophon. ‘This leads
Dionysius to quote from the Second Book of his De /mitatione
(rept pywyoews) a long passage (extending to the end of the Letter)
relating to several Greek historians of note. In the present chapter
Herodotus and Thucydides are compared, with regard to choice and
treatment of subject-matter and with regard to style.
c. 4. Appreciation of Xenophon under the two aspects of
subject-matter and style. Comparison with Herodotus.
c. 5. Similar criticism of Philistus, and comparison with Thucy-
dides.
c. 6. Similar estimate of Theopompus.
In the third chapter Dionysius explains the scope of each
of the three books of his De /mitatione, and states that the
last of the three was not yet finished. None of the books now
survive, though we can gauge the general character of the
second from the extract here given and from a passage
8 DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSUS
to
4
occurring at the commencement of the De 7hucydide. The
fragments once classified under the title De Veterum Censura
(Tv apyaiwyv Kpicw) belong to an Lpztome of the De Imi-
tatione made by some late hand. In its original form, the
work must have been one of the most important literary
productions of Dionysius.
What, now, are the criticisms which Dionysius, greatly
daring, permits himself to pass upon Plato? They are to be
found not only in the 4p. ad Pompeium, but in the De adm.
vt adic. in Demosth. (cc. 5, 6, 23—29, 32) and in the De Comp.
(c. 18). In the De Compositione the remarks of Dionysius are
laudatory, but subject to a certain qualification. “Plato hasa
marvellous sense of melody and rhythm. And if his skill in
choosing his words had equalled his uncommon gifts of com-
position, he would have outstript Demosthenes in beauty of
literary expression, or brought the race to an even finish.
As it is, he commits some blunders in his choice of diction,
especially where he affects an elevated, unusual, and highly
wrought style.” The passage repeated in the ad Pompetum
(c. 2) from the De admir. vi dic. in Dem. (cc. 5, 6) is of the
same general tenour, and/lays stress on the view that Plato
is not at his best when he is most elaborate.) Later on (c. 23)
in the essay on Demosthenes, Dionysius explains his position
more fully. He has declined, he there says, to be awed into
silence by respect for a great name, and he is ready to
submit the issue to the judgment of all unbiassed men of
letters. His strictures appertain, we may add, chiefly to the
department of style, and are supported by various quotations
from the Menexenus. The selection of the MWenerenus (an
inferior, if not a spurious work) shows no prejudice on the
part of Dionysius except that of his vocation. He is a
1 De Comp. c. 18,6 yap avnp etuédecdy Te kal evpvOulay cvvidety daimoviwrartos.
kal el ye Oewods ny otirws éxdéEar Ta vduaTa, ws ouvbetvar TepiTTés, Kat vO Kev 7}
tmapé\acce Tov Anuoobévn KadXous épunvelas eivekev, 7 audnpicrov €Onke’ viv dé 6H
Tepl wev THY EKNoyHY éoTW a dtauapTaver, Kal wddioTa ev ois av Thy UWHAHY Kal
mepitThy Kal éyKatdoKevoy dudkn ppdow: wrép wv érépwHi wor Sydodrar.
* The summary criticism he gives (de adm. vt dc. in Dem. ¢. 29) of the
Menexenus seems to show that he recognises it as a distinctly inferior work of its
author: 6c 6Aov yap ay Tis etipor TOD Aédyou Topevdmevos TA méev OVK aKpLBas ovdEe
as Aa LITERARY GRITIC.
rhetorician, and it is as a teacher of rhetoric that he judges
Plato. | Like other rhetoricians, he tends to think of authors
chiefly as subjects for zz¢ation, a topic on which he had
himself written three books!.| And{with the robust common-
AemTas eipnuéva, Ta OE perpakiwdws Kai Yuxpds, Ta dé odK EyovTa laxdv Kal révoy, Ta
dé nOovns évdea Kal yapirwy, Ta d€ dibvpayBwdn Kal poprixd, ey 5’ Hélouv mdvra
yevvaia elvar kal omovdyjs dia. IINdtwv ydp éotw 6 Taira ypdguy, ds el uh Kal Th
mpwreta oloerar THs NéLEews, mepl ye Tav SevTEpeiwy Toddv ayGva mapéter Tois dia-
pirAnoopevos. The striking passage at the beginning of c. 32 of the same essay
also shows clearly (in connexion with the A/enexenus) Dionysius’ appreciation of
reality—his sense of the futility of a mere rhetorical exercise.
1 Cp. de Thucyd. c. 25, Senbels cob madw Kai Tov &\\wy Ppror\b6ywv Tav évTevéo-
Bévav TH ypady, 76 BowAnud wou THs Urobécews Hs mponpnuae cKorelv, bre Yapaxrhpds
éort Ondwots dravra meptecdnpvia Ta TUUBEBHKOTA adTo Kal dedueva Abyou, 7kOTOV
txovea THv Ghérctay avtav tov Povdnoopévav pipetoOar tov dvbpa. ad Pont/.
c. 3, TovTous yap éyxpivw rods dvdpas <as> els plunoww émitndeotdtous. See
also the concluding words of the Letter to Pompeius.
In reference to this question of zz¢tation, it is important to bear in mind two
points. (1) /mzdation was a regular part of the training given in the rhetorical
schools. Cp. [Cornificius] ad Herennium i. 2, 3, ‘Haec omnia tribus adsequi
poterimus: arte, imitatione, exercitatione.’ Oratorical excellence, that is to say,
depends on the study of the theory of rhetoric, on imitation, and on practice;
and imitation is further defined as follows, ‘imitatio est, qua inpellimur cum
diligenti ratione ut aliquorum similes in dicendo velimus esse’ (zézd@.). (2) It is
expressly stated by Dionysius that there were perverse zmztators of Plato and
Thucydides (not to mention other Attic writers) who aped their eccentricities
rather than their true excellences. de Dinarcho c. 8, cal oi wév IINdrova pipetabat
AéyovTes Kal 70 pev apxatov Kal bWnNdov kal etyape kai KaNov ob duvduevor NaBetv,
HOvpauBwon dé dvduata Kxai oprika elopépovres Kata Todr’ édXéyxovrar padlws.
de adm. vi dic. in Dem. c. 23, wel Twes akioic. warTwy abrov aropaive pocbpwv
TE Kal pytopwv éEpynvetoar Ta TpadyuaTa datmovuwraTroy mapaxeNevovTal Te Nu dpw
kal kavove xpnoda Kabapay dua Kai loyupwy byw To’Tw Tw avopl. de Dinarcho
c. 8, of dé Oouxvdldny (roby Néyovres Kal 7d wev eTovoy Kal orepedy Kai dewdy Kal
Ta TOUTOLS Suota XadeTws ExNauBavorTes, Tos € coAoLKopPavel’s cXHMaTLTMOUS Kal Td
adoades mpoxerpr(duevor, mavu evxepws dy aNloxowTo Ex To’ToV TOU Tapayyé\uaTos.
With this view of the imitators of Thucydides, cp. Cic. Ovat. c. 9 § 30 ‘ecce autem
aliqui se Thucydidios esse profitentur, novum quoddam imperitorum et inauditum
genus,’ and § 32 ‘huius (Thuc.) tamen nemo neque verborum neque sententiarum
gravitatem imitatur; sed, cum mutila quaedam et hiantia locuti sunt, quae vel
sine magistro facere potuerunt, germanos se putant esse Thucydidios. nactus sum
etiam, qui Xenophontis similem esse se cuperet, cuius sermo est ille quidem melle
dulcior, sed a forensi strepitu remotissimus.’ Dionysius’ own advice on the subject
of imitation is given in de Thucyd. c. 55, obK dy dxvjoayue Tots aoKoUot Tovs ToKtTL-
Kovs Aéyous UmoTliOec Oar Tots ye 67 Tas Kpicers ddtacTpdpous ert PuAdoocovadr, Anuo-
céver cupBovtlm xpnoapévous, bv amdavTwy pnTopwv KpatioTov yeyevngOa Tredducda,
TavTas ppetoOa Tas Katacxevds, év als 7 Te Bpaxtrns Kal n dewdTns Kai 7 icxds Kal
30 DIONYSIUS OF HATLTCARNASSGS
sense which characterises him] he sees that the imitation of
Plato is likely to lead lesser mortals into much foolish extra-
vagance. This is perhaps the best explanation that can be
suggested of Dionysius’ attitude, though it must be admitted
that he seems sometimes to show himself blind to the fine irony
and other subtle qualities for which Plato is so remarkable’.
He is, however, unquestionably right in maintaining that,
from the limited point of view to which he confines himself
(viz. the history of the development of Greek oratorical prose),
Demosthenes is a more important figure than even the great
idealist Plato with his mighty imaginative range and his
wonderful charm of style.
(5) Ep. ad Ammaeum II and the De Thucydide.
The first Letter to Ammaeus dealt with a literary pro-
blem, the supposed indebtedness of Demosthenes to Aristotle.
The interest of the Second Letter is rather grammatical or
linguistic than literary, its subject being the peculiarities of
the style of Thucydides.
SUMMARY.
c. 1. Ammaeus had urged that the observations previously
published by Dionysius on the style of Thucydides would be more
concrete and convincing if accompanied by specific examples.
Dionysius acts upon the suggestion.
c. 2. As a basis for the present supplement, Dionysius quotes
from the twenty-fourth chapter of his longer treatise, the De Zhucydide,
0 Tovos Kai 7 meyadompémera Kal ai cvyyevels TavTaLs apeTal TWacw avOpwrols eici
pavepal’ ras 6€ alviyuarwmoes Kal duckatauabyrous Kal ypauuaTikav éEnyhoewr Seo-
wevas Kat modv TO BeBacavicuévoy Kai Td codotKopaves ev Tols TXNMATLOMOLS ExoUGAs
pare Oavyacew unre pipetcbar. Cp. Cic. Orat. c. g § 30, ‘ipsae illae contiones ita
multas habent obscuras abditasque sententias, vix ut intellegantur; quod est in
oratione civili vitium vel maximum.’
1 Instances of this apparent insensibility will be found in ad Pomp. c. 1 ad fin.—
For a discussion of Dionysius’ strictures on Plato’s style, reference may be made
to a paper by Arnaud in Alémotres de 1’ Académie Royale des Inscriptions et Belles-
Lettres, XXXVII. pp. 1-—22, entitled ‘Mémoire sur le Stilede Platon en général; et
en particulier, sur lobjet que ce Philosophe s’est proposé dans son dialogue
intitulé Zoz.’
a
AS A LITERARY CRITIC. 31
a summary account of the distinguishing features of Thucydidean
idiom. This account is now to be illustrated point by point.
c. 3. The employment (by Thucydides) of ‘obscure, obsolete,
difficult and poetical words.
c. 4. Employment of periphrasis and brachylogy.
c. 5. Use of noun for verb.
c. 6. Use of verb for noun. [The topic of the interchange of
common and proper nouns seems to have been omitted by Dionysius,
or to have been accidentally lost. |
c. 7. Use of active for passive voice.
8. Use of passive for active.
g. Interchange of singular and plural number.
. Io. Confusion of the three genders.
spite WSC Of Cases.
Beuo-e es Wise7Or tenses.
c. 13. Sense-constructions whereby the plural number is sub-
stituted for the singular or the singular for the plural. [Between
chapters 13 and 14 would naturally have come the topics which are
suggested by the words év 6€ rots cuvdetikots...... davracias in Cc. 2.
The explanation of the omission must again be either the negligence
of Dionysius or the faultiness of our manuscript tradition. |
c.14. Substitution of persons for things and of things for
persons.
C705.) Parentheses.
c. 16. Involved expressions.
c. 17. Showy figures of the rhetoricians’.
PO2G.S (O86
The Second Letter to Ammacus refers us to the De Thu-
cydide, and that treatise raises the general question of the
attitude of Dionysius towards Thucydides. Not that the
De Thucydide (taken together with its appendix, the Second
Letter to Ammaeus) is the only part of his writings in which
Dionysius expresses his views of Thucydides. Further in-
- dications will be found in the third chapter (itself copied from
the De Imitatione) of the Letter to Pompetus, in chapter
twenty-two of the De Comfositione, and in chapters one, nine
1 The structure of this Letter is discussed, clearly and concisely, in a recent
number of the American Journal of Philology: vide second section of the
Bibliography, under the year 1899.
2 DIONVSIUS OF HALICARNASSUS
os
and ten of the De admir. vi dicendi in Demosthene. But asa
comprehensive treatise expressly devoted to this subject, the
De Thucydide is the capital document to which we naturally
turn in order to ascertain Dionysius’ matured estimate of the
great historian.
The History of Thucydides is considered in the De
Thucydide under the two usual divisions of subject-matter
(cc. 6-—20) and of style (cc. 21—55). It will be convenient
here to reverse the order and take the department of style
first. Dionysius has both praise and blame for the style of
Thucydides. He can transcribe a really great passage (vil.
69—72) of Thucydides, and pay a really fine tribute to it
(de Thucyd. cc. 26, 27). He can at the same time point out
that another passage (iii. 81, 82) is of a distinctly inferior
character (de Thucyd. cc. 29 ff.), and he is in one case auda-
cious enough to suggest a smoother version (zbzd.c. 25). The
general conclusion reached is that the narrative passages are,
with few exceptions, altogether admirable and adapted for
every kind of service, whereas the speeches are not all suitable
for imitation!. Thus we come once more to the consideration
ever uppermost in Dionysius’ mind, that of zzztatzon, and we
have to imagine the absurdities to which the attempts of
ambitious speakers to imitate Thucydides must have led®.
Like imitators generally, they caught the mannerisms rather
than the manner, the eccentricities rather than the essential
features.
But in reviewing the work of Thucydides, Dionysius goes
further than when dealing with Plato. Feeling himself to be
not only a rhetorician but a historian, he has dealt with
Thucydides from the point of view of subject-matter; and the
third chapter of his Letter to Pompeius accordingly furnishes
some strange reading. It is not so much that he prefers the
subject chosen by Herodotus to that chosen by Thucydides.
Others since his time have entertained and defended this
1 De Thucyd. c. 55, 70 dinynuatixoy pépos adtjs mAHy ONiywv mavu CavmacTas
éxew kal els mdoas elvar Tas xpelas eUOeTov, TO de Snunyopixdy ovx array eis ulunow
émiTHOeLov elvar.
2 Cp. p. 29 n. I supra.
AS A LITERARY CRITIC. 33
preference, and Dionysius himself gives a more judicious
statement of his views on the point in the sixth chapter of
his De Thucydide and (indirectly) in the introduction to his
Antiquitates. What distresses the reader is the seeming
assumption that the prime object of history is to please or to
instruct rather than simply to tell the truth ; and not even the
tribute paid to Thucydides as a truth-teller in the later and
more mature De Thucydide (cc. 7, 8) can entirely remove the
unsatisfactory impression left in this respect by the Letter to
Pompeims. \n this matter Dionysius falls far short of the
ideal sketched by Polybius before him, and after him by
Lucian},
Under the heading of subject-matter (7O tpayyatuxov
fépos), Dionysius discusses (de Thucyd. cc. 1, 20) not only
Thucydides’ choice of theme but also his method of hand-
ling it (o¢covoyia). The topic of ofcovouia (‘management’) in
its turn yields such subdivisions as ‘ distribution’ (écaipecus),
‘order’ (ra&is) and ‘treatment in detail’ (é£epyacta), under
which headings he groups criticisms of the annalistic method
of Thucydides, of the opening and the abrupt ending of
his History, of the place assigned to the famous ‘ Funeral
Oration, of the supposed want of proportion shown in various
parts of the work. But these detailed criticisms we cannot
now enter into. Enough to say that, if some of them are
well-founded, others seem to show that Dionysius was greatly
lacking in width of view and in historical perspective. He
has, however, as has been (perhaps too piquantly) observed,
1 Polyb. Hist. i. 14, 4: Kal yap piddgidrov det elvac tov ayabov avdpa’ kal
pirérarpw, kal cupmicety Tots Pidos Tods ExPpovs, Kai cuvayamay Tovs Pirous. dray
6€ 70 ioropias HO0s dvahauBavy Tis, Emiabécbar xXpyn mdvTwv T&v Too'Twy. Lucian,
de conscrib. hist. 41, Tovoiros obv jor 6 cvyypadpeds EoTw, APoBos, adéxacros, Edev-
Oepos, mappyotas Kal adnOelas Piros, ws 6 KwpiKds Pyot, Ta TiKAa cUKa, Thy cKaPny dé
cxapny dvouatwv, ob ploe ovdé girdla Te véuwy, ode Herdduevos 7 EAeGv 7 aloxuvd-
fevos 7} Sucwrotmevos, icos SikacTHs, eivous aTacw axpt TOU uh GaTépw amoveiuac
mretov Tov déovros, Eévos év Tots BuBNlors Kal aohis, adrévouos, dBacireuTos, ov Tk
T@dE 7} THdE Sbzer NoyeCbuevos, dG Ti wémpaxrar Néywv.—Perhaps it is the rhetorical
point of view that causes Dionysius to use the word ‘hearer’ in referring to the
effect produced by various historical works. Thucydides, for example, should
have ended his History with ‘a most remarkable incident, and one right pleasing
to his hearers (rots dxovoucr), the return of the exiles from Phyle’ (a7 Pomp. c. 3).
R. 3
34 DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSUS
cruelly expiated any injustice in his judgments on Thucydides
by coming before the world as a historian himself’.
V. RELATION OF DIONYSIUS AS A LITERARY CRITIC
TO THE ROMANS AND TO THE GREEKS.
We pass now from this account of Dionysius’ essays in
criticism to the question of the relation in which they stand
to the Latin and Greek literature of his own and other times.
Latin literature, as here coming only to a slight extent
under review, may be treated first and summarily.
Following a long-established custom, Dionysius composes
his critical writings in the form of letters, addressed to one or
other of his literary friends, patrons, or pupils. It 1s not easy
to determine the nationality of all these persons, but Quintus
Aelius Tubero, to whom the De TVhucydide is addressed,
is clearly a Roman and possibly no other than the eminent
jurist and historian. The young Melitius Rufus, to whom
Dionysius offers the De Compositione, was also a Roman, his
father being a highly valued friend of the author?. Gnaeus
Pompeius Geminus was, his name notwithstanding, perhaps
rather a Greek than a Roman, and will therefore more fitly
be considered later.
It would be interesting, did not the inquiry open a some-
what extensive field, to illustrate, by other examples than that
of Dionysius, the position occupied at Rome by the Greek
men of letters who resided there. We must here be content
with quoting Dionysius’ own testimony to the part played by
Rome in that purification of literary taste to which he him-
self contributed so much. “I believe that this great revo-
lution (sc. the reversion to the Attic models) was caused and
originated by Rome, the mistress of the world, who drew all
eyes upon herself. The principal agents were members of the
ruling classes of Rome, distinguished by their high charac-
ter and by their excellent conduct of public affairs, and highly
1H. Weil, Denys ad’ Halicarnasse; Premiere lettre a Ammée, p. 6.
* De Comp. c. 1, & Podge MeXire, marpos ayabod Kapmol Timmmrdrov pidwv.
AS A LITERARY CRITIC. 35
cultivated men of lofty critical instincts. Under their ad-
‘ministration the saner elements in the commonwealth have
grown still further in strength, and folly has been con-
strained to be discreet. Accordingly many important
historical works are written by men of our day, and many
graceful specimens of civil oratory are produced, together
with philosophical treatises of no mean order. Many other
fine works on which both Romans and Greeks have lavished
great pains have appeared, and may be expected to appear ;
and since so vast a revolution has been effected in so short
a time, I should not be surprised if that former fashion of
insensate oratory failed to survive another generation. The
reduction of a giant bulk to small dimensions may well be
followed by complete extinction’.”
This passage may be taken to imply that Dionysius had
at least a general knowledge of the Latin literature which
was being produced during his own time. But the know-
ledge was probably only general. Although he was himself
a writer of history and although he had (as he has told us)
learnt the Latin language, he never mentions the historian
Livy—any more than Livy mentions him. Nor does he,
literary critic though he is, make any reference to the Ars
Poetica (or to any other poem) of Horace. And yet he must
have been a close contemporary of Horace, whose life covered
the years 65 to 8 B.c. The fact may be that Dionysius was
influenced: more directly, and perhaps more healthily, by the
Roman men of affairs with whom (or with whose sons) his
vocation brought him into contact than by any Roman man
1 De Antig. Orat., proem., c. 3, aitia 5’ oluar kai apxy Tis Tooa’rys weTaBoNijs
éyévero 7) wavTwy Kparodoa ‘Pdun mpos éavTi dvayKdfovoa Tas das modes a7ro-
Brérew Kal ravrns 6¢ a’rfs of SuvacrevovTes Kar’ aperiy Kal awd Tod Kparlorou Ta
Kowa Otoixobvres, evraldevta mavu Kal yevvatoe Tas Kploers yevouevol, Up Gy Korpov-
pevov 76 Te ppdvimov THs moNews pépos ETL waGAAov EmidédwKev Kal TO avdynTor Hray-
Kaorat vooy éxew. Tovydprot mo\al uev ioroplae omovdys diac ypapovTat Tois viv,
Wool 5é AOvyou wodiTikol yaplevres Expépovrac giddcogpol re cuvTdges ob wa Ala
_ evKatappoynror ddNat Te moANal Kal Kadai mpayuareta Kal ‘Pwyalos Kai" E\Anow eb
KaNa dtecrovdacuévar mpoedn\UOacl Te Kal mpoeNevoovrac KaTa 7O elkds. Kal olK ay
Oaupdoaiue TyALKAUTYS MeTAaBor7s ev TOUTW Tw BpaxEl Xpdbvw yeyevnuérns, el UNKETL
Xwpyoer mpotwrépw pas yeveds 6 (Hros exelvos THv avonrwy Néywv* Td yap Ex TavTos
els EXdxLcTOv cuvaxOev padiov é€& ALyou unde Elvar.
3—2
36 DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSUS
of letters. It is possible also that he felt that his reputation
would be exposed to less risk if he confined his criticisms to
Greek literature, with which he was intimately familiar, than
if he ventured on ground where he could not tread so securely.
The last supposition may help to explain the absence, in
Dionysius’ critical writings, of any reference to a Roman
writer of an earlier generation, whose fame (already great in
his lifetime) had had time to grow still greater, since he
died some thirteen years before Dionysius came to Rome.
Dionysius’ friend and contemporary, Caecilius of Calacte, was
the author of a comparison (avyx«piots) between Cicero and
Demosthenes, for making which he was afterwards taxed
with temerity by Plutarch (Demosth. Vit. c. 3), who likens him
to a fish out of water. The author of the De Swblmitate
(XII. 4) ventures to make the same comparison, but with
all due apologies for his deficiencies as a Greek. Dionysius
seems to have thought it better to refrain altogether. At all
events, be the reason what it may, he never refers to Cicero,
whether as an orator or as a writer on rhetoric, nor does he
quote, for purposes of literary illustration, from any Latin
author whatsoever?
It may be added that a similar reluctance to estimate the
literary qualities of works written in another language may,
indirectly, account for the fact that the critical judgments
pronounced on Greek authors by Quintilian in the first
chapter of the Tenth Book of his /ustitutzo Oratoria often
bear a marked resemblance to those of the De /mztatzone.
It would seem probable that Quintilian drew them from
1 A scholiast suggests, with little confidence and less probability, that Dionysius
is thinking of Cic. Brut. 121 (‘‘lovem sic aiunt philosophi si Graece loquatur
loqui”) when, in De adm. vi dic. in Dem. c. 23, he writes: 767 6€ tuvwy Heovoa
ey hevyovTwv, ws, el Kal mapa Oeots diddexTOs EoTW, 7 TO TOY avOpwrwv KexpnTat
yevos, ovK &\Aws O Bacieds wy abray diaéyerat 6 eds 7 ws IINdrwv. But a likelier
inference is that the ‘philosophi’ mentioned by Cicero were quoted by Dionysius
or by the persons to whom he refers.—Cicero is mentioned (not estimated as a
writer) by Dionysius’ contemporary Strabo, Geogr. 660: kavrai@a 6 avinp a&idNoyos
yeyeentac pytwp Mévimmos xara trols marépas judy Koroxads émixadotpevos, dv
padiora émawel Tov Kata THY Aclay pnrdpwy av jKpodcato Kixdpwy, ws dnow &
Tw ypapy altos cvyKpivwv Zevox\el Kai Tots Kat’ éxeivov axudvoucw.
AS) A LITERARY CRITIC,
o>)
~I
some Greek source which Dionysius himself also used'. The
coincidences, close as they are, hardly warrant the assumption
of direct transference from the pages of Dionysius*.
It has just been stated, or implied, that Dionysius himself
drew from earlier Greek sources. This point needs some little
discussion in detail. But before speaking of his Greek pre-
decessors, we shall find it convenient to say a word about his
Greek contemporaries. The contemporary name which we
most naturally associate with Dionysius of Halicarnassus is
that of Caecilius of Calacte, his fellow-worker (on some-
what different lines) in/the Attic Revival during the age of
Augustus; In one of the letters here edited (ad Pomp.
c. 3 fin.) Dionysius refers affectionately to his “dear friend
Caecilius” as concurring with him in a certain view. A
fuller account of the life and writings of Caecilius will be
found elsewhere*. Here it need only be noted that he wrote
an essay Ox the Sublime, which formed the controversial basis
of the treatise with the same title issued later (probably only
shortly later) by the author traditionally known as ‘Longinus.’
When it was first observed that the best manuscript ascribes
the extant treatise On the Sublime “to Dionysius or Longinus,”
the suggestion was made that Dionysius of Halicarnassus
might be its author. But against this speculation, the argu-
ment from style and spirit (usually precarious) seems here
decisive, even if it were not supported by other kinds of
evidence. Dionysius, with the views he held of Plato as
1 Just as Cicero and Dionysius, or Cornificius and Dionysius, drew from
common sources.
* Reference may be made to H. Nettleship, Lectures and Essays (Second
Series), pp. 79—84; W. Peterson, AZ. abi Quzntiliant Institutionis Oratoriae
Liber Decimus, pp. xxx—xxxvii; O. Knuth, Quantum Dionysti Halicarnassensts
de veteribus scriptoribus censura ad Quintiliant iudicia valuertt. UH. Usener,
Dionys. Halic. Libr. de Imit. Relig., pp. 110 ff. Domenico Bassi, // Libro Decémo
della Instituztone Oratoria di M. Fabio Quintiliano, pp. xxvii—xxix.—For a case
of close parallelism in another book of Quintilian than the tenth, cp. /vs¢. Orat.
i. 4, 18 with the opening of c. 2 of the de Comp.—Quintilian mentions Dionysius
in Just. Orat. iii. 1, 16; ix. 3, 89; ix. 4, 88.
3 Cp. “Caecilius of Calacte: a contribution to the history of Greek Literary
Criticism” in the American Journal of Philology, XVII. 3, pp. 302—312, and
‘“‘Longinus on the Sublime” (Cambridge Univ. Press), p. 7 and pp. 220—222.
38 DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSUS
a writer, could not have admired and imitated him with the
fervour shown in the De Sublimitate. Not Dionysius, but
the friend Pompeius, whom he addresses in the Letter in-
scribed with his name, adopts the attitude which the unknown
writer of the De Sublimitate bears towards Plato; and con-
jecture (if seeking an author in the age of Dionysius) might
have done worse than fix on this Pompeius. His full name
appears (cp. ad Pomp. cc. 1, 2) to have been Gnaeus Pompeius
Geminus. It is possible that he was some Greek freedman,
or Greek client, of the great Pompeius, and that he was named
after him. To judge from the latter part of the second
chapter of the Letter addressed to him by Dionysius, he wrote
in Greek and was a warm admirer of Plato, whose occasional
lapses he defended on the principle expounded with much
eloquence in the De Sudblimitate. Probably he practised as
a rhetorican, and at Rome. Besides Pompeius, three other
contemporaries (Ammaeus, Demetrius, Zeno) mentioned
by Dionysius appear to have been Greeks, but the question
of their identification is attended with many serious diffi- :
culties!. It may be added that among the later Greek
rhetoricians Dionysius enjoyed great fame as one of the
most eminent critics of antiquity. It was no doubt his wide
reputation in this respect that caused him to be coupled with
Longinus in the conjectural title prefixed (probably by
Byzantine scholars) to the De Sublimitate. He was regarded
aS a paramount authority on the study of rhetoric®.
To guide us in estimating the obligations of Dionysius
to his predecessors in the province of rhetoric and literary
criticism we have a good many statements of his own
scattered up and down his critical writings. We find in
him some emphatic or qualified declarations of independ-
ence, and also many direct or indirect acknowledgments
of indebtedness. For example, he states, in the fourth
chapter of the De Compositione, that when he decided to
write a treatise on that subject he looked about to see
1 See Classical Review (reference given at end of Bibliography, infra).
2 Cp. Spengel, Rhetores Graeci, 1. 460, 25: Atoviovos dé 6 ‘Adtkapvaceds, dv
oe
kavova ay 71s eltrot Otkalws THS TWEpPL pyTopLKHY MENETTS.
AS A LITERARY CRITIC. 39
whether any previous writers had treated of it. With this
object he paid special attention to the philosophers of the
Stoic school, who (to do them justice) had given no slight
attention to the department of expression. But he had found
no contribution, small or great, made by any writer of note to
the branch of rhetorical inquiry which he had himself chosen’.
Similar in tone is the emphatic “I” of which Dionysius is in
the habit of making use when he wishes to lay stress upon his
own originality» A more qualified claim is advanced in c. 4
of the introduction to the Azczent Orators. “These are fine
subjects and indispensable for students of political philosophy.
Nor indeed are they familiar or hackneyed topics. I myself,
at all events, am not aware that I have come across any such
book, although I have made diligent search. I do not, how-
ever, make any positive assertion with an assumption of
certain knowledge. There may well be writings of the kind
which have escaped my notice. It is an act of great audacity
—one may almost say, of lunacy—to set oneself up as a
standard of universal knowledge and to deny the occurrence
of something which may possibly have occurred. So on
these points, as I said, I have no positive assertion to
make®.” At first sight this curious passage has an air of
something like dissimulation about it. But the truth probably
rather is that Dionysius is quite sincere and straightforward in
1 De Comp. c. 4, Eywy obv, bre diéyvor auvtarrecbar raitny Thy bribecw,
é(jrouy, el Tt Tols mpdrepov elpnrar mepl alris, Kal padtota Tols amo THS Drods
Pirocbgors, eldws Tods dvdpas ov puxpay ppovtida Tov NeKTiKOU TéroU TeETOLNLEVOUS *
det yap avrots Ta\nOH waprupeiv. ovdauA dé ovdev bm’ ovdevds elpav Tav dvduaTos
hitwudvov otre peifov oiire G\atrov cuvaxbev els nv eyo mponpnuac mpayuarelay,
K.T.A.
2 Cp. de Lysta, c. 20, Toodros wev 4 éotw 6 Avolov xapaxTnp, ws éyw dds Exw
mept avrov. de Antig. Orat. c. 4 (ad fin.), ods eyo Trav GANwv Hyotuae Kparlorous.
With the latter passage cp. de Dinarcho c. 1 (init.), quets xplvowev. For the
De Dinarcho itself considerable originality is claimed in its first two chapters.
3 De Antig. Orat., proem. c. 4, Kaa Jewpyjuara Kai dvayxaia Trois doxotcr THY
ToniTikyny pirocodiay kal od djmov wa Ala kowa ovde Karnuateuuéva Tots mpoTEpor.
éya yodv ovdeme toatTy mepiTuxwr olda ypapy, roANnY CATnTWw alTrav Toinotduevos.
od pévra diaBeBaodual ye ws dy Kai capds elds’ Taxa yap ay elév rwes al eue
SiaravOdvovea Toairar ypadai, Td Sé THS awavTwy icroplas dpov éavTdvy maeiv Kal
mept ToO wn yeyovévac Te THY SuvaTav yevésbar éyew aiiPades wavy Kai ov méppw
pavias. epi ev oby TovTwy ovdev exw, kabamep pny, diaBeBacotcbat.
40 DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSUS
thus guarding himself against the possibility that, in the multi-
tude of critical writings produced in his own and previous
times, something might emerge to convict him of plagiarism !
When acknowledging, as he often does, his indebtedness
to his predecessors, Dionysius is given to quoting a half-line
of Euripides, “for not mine the word!” He also uses such
expressions as “much has been said on these topics by our
predecessors®.”. And, when occasion demands it, he eschews
merely general statements and specifies his authorities by
name’.
The most direct and explicit mention of Aristotle in
particular will be found in the latter part of the De Composi-
tzone, where a statement of Dionysius is defended from any
possible suspicion of novelty or paradox by a detailed refer-
ence to the Third Book of the Ahetoric*, In the De Lsoer.
c. 18, as elsewhere occasionally in the rhetorical writings, similar
references are made to Aristotle as a generally recognised au-
thority. But on the whole, as the second chapter of the F7zrst
Letter to Ammaeus shows, Dionysius is inclined to resist the
extravagant claims made by the Peripatetics on behalf of the
founder of their school. He reminds the readers of that
chapter that eminent services had been rendered to the art of
rhetoric not only by philosophers but by a number of
1 ov yap euos 6 w000s, ad Pomp. c. 2 (=de adm. vi dic. in Dem. c. 5 fin.),
de adm. vi dic. in Dem. c. 35 init., de Lsocr. c. 13 init. The full line possibly was
KovK €u40s 6 wvOos, aN éuAs untpos mapa Eurip. Alelanippe (Nauck, 7rag. Graec.
Fragm." pp. 511, 512). Cp. Plat. Symp. 177 A.
* De Comp. c. 16, wept wy eipnrat moda Tols mpd nuav. de adm. vi dic.in Dem.
C. 51, Thy TapacKkeuny jv oi Tadatol Kadodow evperw. de Lsocr. c. 13 ad fin., roAdots
6é kal Gos Tadra Kal Tapamdjova TovTas elpnrat, mepl wy obey Séouar ypagdev.
3 E.g. de [socr. c. 13, de Lsaco c. I.
4 De Comp. c. 25, kai 67t GNnOH Taira eat, Kal ovdév Ey KatvoToUe, Ad Bor wev
av Tis Kal €x THS ApiororéAous waptuplas TH wioTw* elpnrac yap TH piocdpdw Ta TE
GdXa mepl THs NéEEws THs ToALTLKAS Ev TH TpiTn BUBAwW TaY pyTopiKav Texvar, olav
avrny eivat mpoonkel, Kal 67 Kai Trepi Tis evpvOulas, €& wy ay ToLa’Tn yévolTo’ ev 7 TOUS
émirnoecoTatous dvoudcer puduovs, kal mn xXpHoywos ExacTos a’tav Kkatapalverat, kal
NéEets wapatiOnci twas, als meipara: BeBao’v Tov NOyov. The passage specially in
view is Phet. ili. 8, 70 6€ cxHuUa THs NéEEws Del NTE Euperpov elvac unTe appuOmov
(cp. Cic. Ovat. 193, ‘‘quia nec numerosa esse, ut poema, neque extra numerum, ut
sermo volgi, esse debet oratio”’). Dionysius adds that, apart from the authority
of Aristotle, experience itself proves the truth of this observation.
AS Ai LITERARY ‘GRITIC. 41
orators and professional rhetoricians whose names he
mentions. This list deserves a brief analysis. Seven of the
names—Antiphon, Isocrates, Jsaeus, Demosthenes, A¢schines,
Lycurgus, Hyperides—belong to the canon of the Ten Attic
Orators. Thrasymachus appears in the First Book of Plato’s
Republic, while Theodorus is mentioned in the Phaedris
(266 E). Alcidamas was a pupil of Gorgias. Theodectes,
Philiscus and Cephisodorus were disciples of Isocrates, Theo-
dectes being known also from Aristotle’s Poetics as a writer
of tragedies‘. Anaximenes was a rhetorician and historian
of the time of Philip and Alexander, and was in all probability
the author of the Rhetorica ad Alexandrum, once attributed to
Aristotle’,
A few further comments suggested by the names thus
selected may not be amiss. As might have been expected
from the adverse judgments of Dionysius elsewhere (e.g. ad
Pomp. c. 2, ad Amm. I. c. 2, de Isaeo c. 19), no place is found
for Gorgias on the list, though his pupil Alcidamas is there.
And yet Gorgias of Leontini is the real founder of artistic
prose, and extravagance may be condoned (or at any rate,
can be understood) in the case of an enthusiastic propagandist.
Not only Gorgias, but also his satirist Plato is absent from
the list of Dionysius, who hardly ever refers to Plato as an
authority on any branch of rhetoric’. This may partly be
because Plato symbolized the old quarrel between philosophy
and rhetoric, but it is also connected with the feeling of dislike
entertained by Dionysius for vicious imitations of Plato’s style.
1 In referring elsewhere (de Comp. c. 2, de adm. vi dic. in Dem. c. 48) to
Aristotle and Theodectes together, Dionysius adopts the order OeodéxTns Kai
*ApirToréAns.
2 Criticisms of the merits of some of the authorities here mentioned will
be found in De J/saeo cc. 19, 20.—From these, and other passages already
quoted, it will be clear to the reader how many out-of-the-way pieces of /iterary
history we owe to Dionysius: cp. de Lsocr. c. 18, de adm. vi dic. in Dem. Cc. 3,
de Thucyd. cc. 5, 51.
* In De Comp. c. 16 Plato is recognised as the founder of etymological science :
Ta KpatioTa O€ véuw, ws mpwTw Tov Umép ETUMoAoylas elaayaydvTt Néyov, HAdrwre
T@ Lwxparix@, woddaxH mev cal GAA, wddora dé év TS Kpar’rdy. In the
De Isocr. c. 12 there is a reference to Plato’s comparative estimate (Phaedrus 279 A)
of Isocrates and Lysias.
42 DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSUS
Isocrates, on the other hand, is commended both as a writer
and asa theorist". Of the ‘philosophy’ of Isocrates Dionysius
was an ardent admirer (de Jsocr. cc. 4, 12; ad Pomp. c. 6).
There remain certain other names, which do not appear in
the enumeration given in the /7rst Letter to Ammaeus for the
simple reason that they belong to a period later than the one
there in question. Foremost among these names is that of
Theophrastus, the pupil and successor of Aristotle, who is
mentioned repeatedly (though not always with approbation)
in the rhetorical writings of Dionysius*. The influence, direct
or indirect, of the lost work of Theophrastus Ox Style (aepi
deEews) was probably great. References are also found in
Dionysius not only to Peripatetics like Theophrastus, but
to Stoics (de Comp. cc. 2, 4; de adm. vi dic. in Dem. c. 48)
and Bpicureans (7dzd. c. 24 ad fin.), as also to Demetrius
Phalereus (de Dinarcho c. 2, ad Pomp. c. 2, de adm. vt dic. in
Dem.c. 5) and Demetrius Magnes (de Dinarcho c. 1), to the
scholars of Alexandria (especially Callimachus, de Dinarcho
cc. I, 10, de Isaeo c. 6, de adm. vi dic. i Dem. c. 13) and of
Pergamus (tovs éx [lepyapouv ypaumaticovs de Din. c. 1,
ev tois Llepyaunvots tivaks tid. c. 11: in ad Amm. I. c. 4 the
expression of Tovs pytopiKovs mivakas cuvtaéavTes will cover
the librarians both of Alexandria and of Pergamus), and to
various writers on metre, rhythm and the like (de adm. vi dic.
am Dem. c. 48, de Comp. cc. 14, 22)°. In general it may be said
of Dionysius, in relation to his technical predecessors in the
field of literary criticism, that he is a scholar of wide and
sound learning who seeks the best wherever he can find it and
thinks he finds it rather in the writers of an older generation
1 The question whether Isocrates wrote an ‘Art of Rhetoric’ is discussed in
Jebb’s Aztec Orators, 11. 256—259. [For a similar discussion as to Isaeus, see the
same vol. p. 311 n. 1.]—The ‘school’ of Isocrates is mentioned in ade Comp. c. 19,
GAN obx 7 ye Iooxparous kal Tay éxelyw yrwpluwv alpeots duola Tatras HV.
2 De Lysia c. 6, 14; de Lsocrate c. 33 de adm. vi dic. in Dem. c. 3; de Comp.
@, ii.
% The last-mentioned passage contains the curious phrase (reminiscent perhaps
of Herodotus and Plato) pyrépwy matdes: ka dé me d€Eac vuvi héyew, ovdX ois
’Apitopavys 7 T&v dANwy Tis peTpiKaY drexdcunoe TAS GOds, GAN’ ols | Pats akwor
dtatpetv Tov Névyov, Kal pnTrdpwy matdes Tas mepiddous diatpoviot, de Comp. c. 22.
AS A LITERARY CRITIC. 43
than in those of modern days (of véor teyvoypadou, de [saco c.
14 fin.). Of originality he shows as much as it is usually given
to scholars to show. His judgment was entirely independent,
and its value is even more decisively displayed on the literary
or aesthetic than on the strictly technical side.
VI. GENERAL ESTIMATE OF DIONYSIUS AS A LITERARY
Critic. His AIMS AND HIS ACHIEVEMENTS.
Beyond and above the question of the relation of Dionysius
to his Greek predecessors in the sphere of rhetoric and literary
criticism is that of his attitude towards Greek literature
generally. [His true distinction as a critic is his purity of
taste. When the temptation to follow later and more preten-
tious writers must have been great, he reverts to the real
classics of Greece, [He is eager to restore the great authors
to their rightful supremacy ;) he labours to discriminate
between their genuine and their spurious works. Practical in
his aims, he desires to determine the highest standard reached
by Attic prose, and to mould thereby his own writing, that of
his fellow-Greeks, and (indirectly) that of his Roman pupils
also.
His own graphic description of the vicissitudes of taste
which ended in the Attic Revival of his own day may be read
in the Proem of his Axcizent Orators :—
“Great is the gratitude due to our own age, most excellent
Ammaeus, not only on account of the recent improvement in other
pursuits, but above all because of the great advance made in the
study of Civil Oratory. In the times before our own the ancient
and philosophic rhetoric was flouted, grossly outraged, and brought
lower and lower. Its decline and gradual decay began with the
death of Alexander of Macedon, and in our own generation it
reached the verge of final extinction. Another rhetoric stole into
its place,—one intolerably ostentatious, shameless and_ dissolute,
and without part in philosophy or any other liberal discipline.
Craftily it deluded the ignorant multitude. Not only did it live
in greater affluence and luxury and style than its predecessor, but it
attached to itself those offices and those foremost public positions,
which should have been held by the philosophic rhetoric. Very
44 DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSUS
vulgar it was and offensive, and in the end it reduced Hellas to the
same plight as the households of miserable prodigals. For just as in
their houses the wedded wife, free-born and virtuous, sits with no
authority over what is hers, while a riotous mistress, by her presence
spreading confusion in the home, claims rule over all the property,
spurning and intimidating the wife: so in every city and not least
(which was the worst calamity of all) in the recognised centres of
culture, the Attic Muse, ancient and sprung from the soil though she
was, had been robbed of her dignities and covered with dishonour,
whereas her rival, who had come but yesterday from one of the dens
of Asia, a Mysian or Phrygian wanton or some Carian abomination,
presumed to govern Greek states, driving the true queen from the
public council-chambers,—the ignorant ousting the philosophic, the
wild the chaste?.”
After thus vividly depicting the fortunes of the more
meretricious qualities of style, Dionysius next proceeds to
congratulate his age and the united forces of the ‘ philosophers’
(€raiveiy TOY TapovTa ypovoyv Kal Tos cuUudhiNocodovyTas
avOpwrous aévov, c. 2 267d.) on the magnitude of the revolution
so successfully effected, and to note (c. 3: cp. p. 34 supra) the
1 De Antig. Ovat. c. 1, wo xapw nv eidévar TH Kad’ Huds xpovw Sikacov,
@ Kpatiste “Aupate, kal d\Nwy pév Tie emitndevdtwy evexa viv Kadd\oy acKov-
uévev 7% mporepov, ovx nKioTa dé THs Tepl Tovs moNTLKOUS NOvyous Emipedelas ov uLKPaY
erldocw memomnuevns Ewi TA KpelTTW. EV yap On TOLs TPO NUaY XpovOLs ] meV apxata
kal diNdcopmos pynropixy) mpomndaktGouevyn Kat dewas UBpers brouévouca KateNveTo,
dpiayevn ev amd THs ‘ANeEdvdpou Tov Makeddvos redeuTHs éexmvew Kal wapaiverBar
Kat oNlyov, éml 6€ THs Ka’ Huds jALKias puKpod denoaca eis TENOS HPavicba* Erépa
6é Tus Emi TH Exelvns TapeNOovoa Taki, apdpyros avatdela BeaTpiKy Kal avaywyos Kal
ore piiocodias otire GANov Tardevmatos ovdevds weTehnpuia EXevHeEpiov, Nafovca Kal
Tapakpovcapevn THY TaV OxNwY Aryvotav, od povoyv ev evropia Kal Tpupy Kal popo7
mciove THs Erépas Sipyev, AANA Kal Tas Tyas Kal Tas MpooTacias Tay TOEwY, as Ede
Tiv pirdcopoy Exe, eis EauTHy avnpTjoato Kal nv poptiKyn Tis mavu Kal 6xAnpa Kal
Te\evTGoa TapatAnoiay émoince yevécOar Tiv “Edda Tais Tay aowTwy Kal Kako-
Saiwovey oixias. womep yap ev éxeivats 7 wev ENeVUEpa Kai THPpwr yameTH KAOnTaL
pnievos otca Tav aitns Kupia, éraipa 6é Tis appwv ém’ dEOpw Tod Blov mapodca
mdaons aévot THS ovcias apxew, sKUBaNifovoga Kal dedirTOMevn THY ETEpay’ Tov avTov
Tpomov ev waon mode Kal obdEuas HTTOY év Tals evmadedTas (TovTl yap amavTwr
Tav Kakay éoxarov) 7 wey ATTiKn podoa kal apxaia kal abroxdwy aryuov eidnger
oXI-A, Tav EauTas exrecovca ayalar, n dé ék TWwwv BapdOpwy THs Actas éxOés Kal
Tpunv adixouevn, Muay 4 Ppvyia tis 7 Kapixdv te kaxdv, “EAnvidas nelov dtocKety
models aTehacaca THY Kowav Thy Erépay, |) aualhns Thy Piddcopoyv Kal h wawoudryn
Thy cwppova.
———
aS A TALTERARY CRITTE, 45
part borne in it by the leading men of Rome. The protracted
struggle which he has in mind is that between Asianism and
Atticism, or the cult of the florid writers (conveniently but
not exhaustively grouped as ‘ Asiatic’) of the period between
Demosthenes and Cicero, as contrasted with the counter-
movement which sought its models in the Attic writers of the
best days of Greece. Especially notable is the term ¢udo-
aodos which Dionysius, in this and other passages, applies to
the Atticist rhetoric as distinguished from the Asiatic. By
girocopos he means ‘theoretic’ (or ‘technical’ in the best
sense), ‘artistic,’ ‘scientific’; the antithesis of all that is merely
‘empirical, merely the result of practice.
The style of a leader of the Asiatic school, Hegesias
of Magnesia, and some criticisms passed upon it by Dionysius,
have already been noticed in the account given above (p. 12)
of one of the early chapters of the De Compositione. Later
(c. 18) in that treatise Dionysius enlarges on the sins of
Hegesias in the matter of rhythm. “Upon my soul, I cannot
decide whether he was so dense and stupid that he could not
see which are the noble and ignoble rhythms, or (as I am
rather inclined to think) so infatuated and fatally misguided
that he chose the worse although he knew the better.
Ignorance may frequently hit the mark: it is wilfulness that
invariably misses it. Among all the works left by the man
it would be impossible to find a single page successfully
composed?” In proof he quotes a historical passage from
Hegesias, and compares it with an excerpt from Homer (//zad
Xxii. 395—411) full of nobly rhythmical lines.
It is by comparisons such as this, in which Homer is
pitted against the arch-offender Hegesias, that Dionysius
endeavours to raise the standard of literary taste in his own
time. He appeals to the example of the truly classical
1 De Comp. c. 18, b7rép ov, wa Tov Ala Kal Tods adXous Beois amavtas, ovK old’ 6
Tt xp A€yew, wérepov Toca’tyn Twepl abrov nv avacOnola Kal maxlTys, WoTE M7
guvopay, oitiwés eiaw evyeveis 7) ayevers puduol, 7 Toca’Tn BeoBraBera Kai dtaPbopa
TV Ppevav, wore eldéTa Tos Kpelrrous émerra alpetcPar Tods xelpovas* 6 Kai wa\dov
melOouar* aryvoias pev ydp éore kal 7d KaropOodv mo\Naxod* mpovolas dé, Td undérore.
€v yobv Tals Tocavrats ypagats, ds KaraNéAourev 6 avnp, wlav ovK ay elipor Tis geNOa
ovyKemevny evTUXAS.
46 DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSUS
writers,—not only of the Attic but of a still earlier period,
not only prose-writers but poets. To him posterity thus
owes, among other boons, the preservation (in de Comp. cc.
23, 26) of Sappho’s //ymn to Aphrodite and of Simonides’
Danae’. His apt choice of illustrations, and his skill in
comparing those drawn from one author with those drawn
from another, are admirably shown when he is dealing with
the prose-writers of Greece, and especially with his own
favourite orators. His critical writings form a golden treasury
of extracts from the best writers of Greece.
Dionysius more than once reminds us of the often-
forgotten truth that the excellence of the ancient authors
was the result of ingenious and elaborate art. He will
not exempt from this rule even Homer himself, who seems
so spontaneous in his utterance. Homer is, in his view,
a sedulous artist (cp. the verbs didotexvety and Kxatvoupyety
as applied to Homer in de Comp. cc. 15, 20). In the same
way he mentions (c. 25 zbzd.: cp. de adm. vi adic. in Dem.
c. 25) the stories current in antiquity concerning the infinite
pains bestowed by Isocrates upon his Panegyric and by
Plato upon the opening of his Republic. Admitting that
the labour is severe, he maintains that the joys of literary
success are a sufficient compensation, and he condemns
unsparingly the dictum of Epicurus that ‘writing entails no
trouble’ (de Comp.c. 24 fin.) At the conclusion of his own
treatise he reminds his young pupil that the precepts of
literary manuals cannot, of themselves, make powerful de-
baters of those who are minded to dispense with study and
practice’.
[At the same time Dionysius knows, as well as anyone,
1 Cp. pp. 18, 19 supra.
» De Comp. c. 26 fin. Dionysius is, it will be seen, perfectly sensible of the
limits of the teacher’s power. Here he refers to the necessity of work on the
learner’s part. Earlier (c. 12 zézd.) he has some highly interesting remarks on the
incommunicability of tact (the sense of xa:pés),—remarks which show how fully
alive he was to the existence in style of an element which eludes analysis. ‘No
one,’ he says, ‘whether rhetorician or philosopher, has, up to the present hour,
mapped out a manual of tact’’ (katpov dé ovire pyrwp ovdels ovre piddcogos els Th0€
Xpovou TEXYNY WpLoEV, C. 12).
As AL EITERARY CRITIC. 47
that the best art is that which best conceals itself. A studied
simplicity is the ideal he upholds\ Of Plato he says, “he is
a long way superior when he employs language which is plain
and correct, language which seems to be natural but is really
elaborated with unoffending and unpretentious skill” (ad Pomp.
c. 2). Lucidity of expression he pronounces to be the fore-
most excellence of style’. When discussing the obscurities
of language found in the History of Thucydides and especially
in his Speeches, he remarks that “only a select few can
comprehend the whole of Thucydides, and not even they
without occasional help in the way of grammatical explana-
tions*®.” He adds his opinion that the language of Thucydides
was unique even in his own day, and combats the view that
a historian (as distinguished, say, from an advocate) may
plead in excuse for an artificial style that he does not write
for “people in the market-place, in workshops or in factories,
nor for others who have not shared in a liberal education,
but for men who have reached rhetoric and philosophy after
passing through a full curriculum of scientific studies, to
whom therefore none of these expressions will appear un-
familiar®.” Obscurity and eccentricity, he says in effect,~
are not virtues except in the eyes of literary coteries ; pre-
sumably a speaker speaks, and a writer writes, in order to be
understood.
[it is interesting to observe that what Dionysius prescribed~
to others he did not fail to practise himself, As for his own
style of writing it may suffice to remark that, whatever else
may be thought about it, it is at least eminently lucid and
unaffected. It is equally evident that, in his own domain of
literary criticism, he was a hard and assiduous worker. His
range was wide, and his knowledge of the countless ‘lines’
1 De TIsocr. c. 11, mpwrnv peév tolvev pny aperhy civac N6ywv Thy Kabapay
Epynvelav.
2 De Thucyd. c. 51, ebaplOunro yap twés elow ola mavra Ta Oovkvdldov cup-
Banetv, kal 086” ot Tor xwpis eEnyhoews ypaumuatiKys évia.
3 zbid. c. 50, ob yap ayopalos avOpwros ovd Emcdipplos 7 XELpoTexvats ovdE Tots
Gros of uy perécxov aywyis éNevepiov Ta’Tas KaTacKevatecOar ras ypadds, aN’
avipace 6a Tv éyKuKNiwy wadnudrwv émi pytopixjy Te <Kal> Pirocoplav éXn\vbbow,
ols ovdev Payncera ToUTWY Lévov.
48 DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSOS
(otixyo.) he mentions from time to time seems to have been
minute and accurate. {He united most effectively philological
with rhetorical studies. He was at once a scholar and a critic.
Thoroughness was his watchword. In his view, rhetoric
ought not to be practised by arm-chair professors’. He is
no frivolous dabbler or dilettante (such as the many who
have made literary criticism a byword for superficiality),
but he believes in serious, prolonged, and fortifying literary
and literary-historical studies. He furnishes us with one of
the earliest and the best examples of the systematic exercise
of the art of literary criticism.
We cease to wonder at his success as a literary critic
when we consider the temper in which he approached his
task. Not only was he a lover alike of work and of simplicity,
but he possessed other excellent critical attributes. Let him,
yet once again, speak for himself. Criticism, he says, must
be outspoken but not censorious. He protests that throughout
his life he had been on his guard against a contentious and
quarrelsome and promiscuously snarling attitude, But he
claims full critical liberty, and exposes a popular fallacy
which is as hollow as it is offensive. “If we are inferior
in ability to Thucydides and other writers, we do not there-
fore forfeit the right to form an estimate of them*®” In the
same spirit he declares (ad Pomp. c. 1) that though it would
be an act of impiety to attack Plato after the manner of a
Zoilus, it is none the less the duty of the critic (as opposed to
the panegyrist) to examine into the truth with the utmost
exactitude, and to pass over none of an authors good or
bad qualities. For such an inquiry the method of ccom-
parison, invidious though it may seem, is essential (2zd.).
1 De Dinarcho c. 1, Tots wh Ex wepr~wuaros (‘wearing the apron, or mere outward
sign’) doKodcr Ti pntopiKny.
2 De Thucyd. c. 2, 76 di\bveckov TovTO Kai dUcEpt Kat mpocvNaxTovy ElkH Taow ev
mavri Tepudaypévos TW Biw wéxpt TOU mapdyTos.
° ibid. c. 4, €v Ere Nelwerai por mépos amoNoyias deduevov, emipBovov wey Te
Karnyopnua Kal Tots moNNois Kexapiopuevor, padiws 5° e&eheyxAAvar Suwvnoduevory, ws
ovk éorw wyés. ot yap el TH Guvaper NeToueHa Oovkvdidov Te Kal Tov avdpav, Kal
TO Oewpytikov a’Ttay amo\wéxayev. This contention is supported by the analogy
of the fine arts.
AS A LITERARY CRITIC. 49
Dionysius may not always have succeeded in attaining
the high ideals which he thus fearlessly set before him. His
immediately practical aim has sometimes led him to circum-
scribe his activities, and to dwell, at perhaps disproportion-
ate length, on matters of style and purely verbal criticism.
But for the modern world even these limitations have not
been altogether a disadvantage. He has helped where help
was most needed. He has brought to bear upon the dis-
cussion of delicate questions of literary appreciation the trained
instinct of a critic for whom Greek was still a spoken tongue,
and whose ears still rang with the music of the language
as it once was heard upon the lips of the great Athenian
Orators.
Note on MSS. of the Three Literary Letters.
Of the first two Literary Letters only inferior manuscripts (none
of them earlier than the fifteenth century) survive. The text of the
Second Letter to Ammaeus depends on the excellent Codex Parisinus
1741 (preserved in the Azhliothégue Nationale), the readings of which
are here reported after a fresh collation made last summer by the editor.
The other manuscripts of the Second Letter are derived from this, but
their readings deserve some consideration if only as helping to indicate
the extent to which conjectural emendation is required in the /irs¢
Letter and in the Letter to Pompeius. Some remarks on the general
question of the textual criticism of the Scvipta Rhetorica of Dionysius
will be found in a notice (Classical Review, X1V. pp. 452—455) of the
admirable edition by Usener and Radermacher, of which the first
volume was published in 1899.
Siglorum in Notults Criticis Adhibitorum Index.
Ep. ad Amm. I.
M =cod. Ambrosianus saec. XV.
B =cod. Parisinus bibl. nat. 1742 saec. XV.
O =cod. Ottobonianus saec. XVi.
Pal=cod. Palatinus saec. XV.
Ss =editio princeps Henrici Stephani.
r =exemplum Reiskianum.
Us =exemplum ab Usenero et Radermachero nuper editum.
A_ = Anistotelis lectio.
R. , 4
50 DIONYSIUS AS A LITERARY CRITIC.
Ep. ad Pomp.
M =cod. Ambrosianus saec. Xv.
Pal = cod. Palatinus saec. XV.
B =cod. Parisinus bibl. nat. 1742 Saeey ver
s =editio princeps Henrici Stephani.
Us =exemplum ab Usenero annis abhine duodecim editum.
A =Dhionys. Halic. de adm. vi dic. in Demosth. cc. 5—4.
Lip. ad Amm. il.
P =cod. Parisinus bibl. nat. 1741 saec. X. vel xi.
G =cod. Guelferbytanus xiv saec. XVI.
C =cod. Laurentianus LX 18 saec. Xv.
D =cod. Paris. supplem. 256 saec. XIV.
a = Aldi Manutii editio rhetorum.
s =editio Roberti Stephani.
Us =exemplum ab Usenero et Radermachero nuper editum.
A =Dionys. Halic. de Thucyd. c. 24 et alibi.
® = Thucydidis lectio.
DIONYSII
HALICARNASSENSIS
EPISTULA AD AMMAEUM I
AIONY2IOZ AMMAIQI TQ! GIATAT QI 7:98
IIAEISTA XAIPEIN
I
Tlo\A@v per aiitov E€vwy Te Kal TapaddEwv akov-
TLATwV, wv evnvoxev 0 KAM Has ypovos, EV TL Kal TOUTO
5 avn MOL TPWTMS akOVOAVTL Tapa Gov, OTL TAY Piiodo-
dov TLS TaV EK TOV TEpiTaTOV TavTa yapilerAar Bovdo-
> 4 “a” / 4 \ 4
pevos Aptototéhen Tw KTLDaVTL TavTHY THY dilocodtiay
Kal TOUTO UTécXETO TOLnTEW avepov, OTL Anpoo bens
Tas pytopikas Téyvas Tap ekelvov ja Hwy eis Tovs idtovs 720
10 METHVEyKE hOyouSs Kal KAT eKELVa KOT MOVpLEVOS TA Tapay-
yélpata TavTwy eyeéveTo TOV PYTOPWVY KpPaTLDTOS. KAT
apxyas pev ovv vrehduBavov Tov ToAMO@V Twa €ivaL TOV
TaUT emLyElpnoavTa eye, Kal TapyVvovY ToL pH TAaTL
Tots Tapadd€os mpocéyew. ws € Kal ToVVO_a TOU
> \ > / aA > ‘\ \ “~ > “A 4 \ lal
15 avOpos eTVOdpny, Ov ey® Kal Tov nO@Y EveKa Kal TOV
hoywr arodéxopar, Oavpaca, Kal Tovs ev euavT@ yevo-
+ ww Los
pevos eTeheotépas wpny detcOar oKeews TO Tpaypa,
4 4 / 3 \ y ¥ \ > \ > Lal
pn mote héhnBé pe TadryOes ovTws Exov Kal ovdey EiKy
Aa. 5 \ suf y. x \ d0€ a / aN
T@ avopl elpyTal, iva | THY OdEav HV TpPOTEpoY avTOS 721
20€ax0v <adeinv> BeBaiws palav ort tpotepovor Tov
I,2 om. O. 4 €y 7 libri: corr. s. 8 todroré Pal.
10 Kars: per libri | 7a om. O. 16 éywv] Kiesslingius, Novy libri.
18 peom. Pal. 20 adeinv BeBaiws|] Us, BeBawh MOs BeBawrd B Pal
BeBaiws pweraboiuny Weilius | wabGy B Pal.
DIONYSIUS TO HIS FRIEND AMMAEUS
WITH CORDIAL GREETINGS.
|
Our age has produced many strange paradoxes; and
among them I was inclined to class the following propo-
sition when I first heard it from yourself. You said that
a certain Peripatetic philosopher, in his desire to do all
homage to Aristotle the founder of his school, undertook
to demonstrate that it was from him that Demosthenes learnt
the rules of rhetoric which he applied in his own speeches,
and that it was through conformity to the Aristotelian pre-
cepts that he became the foremost of all orators. Now my
first impression was that this bold disputant was a person of
no consequence, and I advised you not to pay heed to every
chance paradox. But when on hearing his name I found
him to be a man whom I respect on account of his high
personal qualities and his literary merits, I did not know
what to think; and after careful reflection I felt that the
matter needed a more attentive inquiry. It was possible
that I had failed to discern the truth and that he had not
spoken at random. I wished, therefore, either to relinquish
54 DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSUTS.
r / 4 ed / / Xx ‘\ i.
Anpoobévous hoywv at “Apiatorédous TExVaL, 7) TOV OVTWS
EyVKOTA Kal ypaat ye TapEerKEvacpEVOV, Tp Els OyOV
> lal XN 4 ia) / \ /
EKOOUVaL TO ovvTaypa, weTaBadety Teo ate THY dd€av.
II
OvK éhaytoTyy dé pou Kal ov TApET KOU pomnv eis
~ \ , >? / \ > / an
5TO py Tapepyws e€eracar THY adlyjOevay, Tapakadov
pavepovs Toinoat TOVS NOyous, ois ewavTov TéTrEeLKa Anpo-
/ > / » SS \ > / > ,
oévous axpalovTos non Kal Tovs eripaverTatous EipyKOTOS
ayavas TOTE UTO ‘AptaToTedous TAS pyTopiKas yeypabOar
Téxvas. €ddKELS TE poL Kal TOVTO dpOas Talpawetv, py
, \ Se, 3) 3 , \ a ,
10 TNMELOLS pNde ElKdoL NO aAXoOTPials TO TPAypLa TLTTO-
cacbat paptupias, emeon TovTwY oVdEe“ia TOV TidTEwWY
> > / , , > > > XN >
du avayKaiov ovvayeTar AnppaTwy: ad avTov “ApioTo-
TéAN TapacyéocOar Sia TOV iWiwy TEeyvav dpohoyovrTa
> \ 4 ¥ ~ \ , tA
Tadynfes ovtws e€xyew. Tovto Oy Temoinka, BédtioTE
> A lal > lA 7, a > \ ‘\
Appate, THs Te adybetas mpovoovpevos, nv ert TavTOS
i]
ial
» la , B} 4 \ Lal c ,
Olopat SeLv TpPQy [LAT OS e€eTalerbar, Kal THs amavTwv
TOV TEPL TOUS To\uTLKovs Oyous ED TOVOAKOTMV Xa pitos:
LA AN al > c , LA , 4 c
iva pn ToVP vrotaBwow, OTe TavTa TEepLeLknphey 1H TeEpt-
TatytiKy piiocodia Ta PNTOpLKa TapayyeApara, Kat
” © \ , \ , Ninor A
20 0UTE Ol TEPL MEeddwpov Kal Opacvpayov Kat “AvTipovta
A » 2aN a ¥ 7 , Ni ,
OTOVONs a€uov ovoeV €UPOV OUTE IooKpatys Kat Avaéiwe-
\ > , » e 4 , lal
vyns Kat “AdKiOapas ovTe ol TovVTOLsS TUpBLWOGaVTES TOS
avopact Tapayyehparov TEXVLKQV ovyypadets Kal ayo-
A , c Lal c \ 4 \ 4
vioTat Noywv PHNTOPLKOY, Ol TEPL @codéktTyv Kat Putiokov
25 Kal Ioatov Kai Kndiaddmpor | “Trepidnv te Kat AvKoup-
A > 4 > > Sy > \ c 4 c
yov Kat Atoyivyy, ov) <av> avTos 0 Anpoobérys 6
\ lal \ A >
TavtTas uTepBahopevos TOVS TE TPO avTov Kat Tovs Kal
c \ A A a“ , c \ A
EavTOV KaL pyoe TOS ywopevots VTEpBolnv KatahuTaV
2 yes: Te libri. 14 TadnO7 O. 24 udicxov] Sylburgius, Pl\ccrov
MO Pal s. 26 006’ ay] Us, ode libri. 27 warepBaddduevos Pal | adrod
MB.
722
723
: FIRST LETTER TO AMMAEUS. 55
my previous opinion if convinced that the Rhetoric of Aristotle
preceded the speeches of Demosthenes, or to induce the
person who has adopted this view, and is prepared to put it
in writing, to change it before giving his treatise to the world.
Il
You have yourself furnished me with a powerful motive
for a thorough investigation of the truth. For you have
invited me to state the arguments by which I have convinced
myself that it was not till Demosthenes had reached his
prime, and had delivered his most celebrated speeches, that
Aristotle wrote his Rhetoric. And you seemed to me, further,
to be right in counselling me not to rest my case on mere
indications or probabilities or pieces of extraneous evidence,
since no such proof is absolutely conclusive, but rather to
bring forward Aristotle himself as witnessing by means of his
own treatise to the truth of my view. This I have done, my
dear Ammaeus, out of regard not only for the truth, which |
think ought to be fully sifted in every issue, but for the satis-
faction of all who are interested in civil oratory. I would not
have them think that all the precepts of rhetoric are included
in the Peripatetic philosophy, and that nothing important has
been devised by men such as Theodorus and Thrasymachus
and Antiphon, nor by Isocrates and Anaximenes and Alci-
damas, nor by their contemporaries who composed rhetorical
handbooks and engaged in oratorical contests—such men as
Theodectes and Philiscus and Isaeus and Cephisodorus,
together with Hyperides and Lycurgus and Aeschines. Nor
would I have it thought that Demosthenes himself, who
surpassed all his predecessors and contemporaries and defies
Io
_
un
20
25
56 DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSUS.
a “A > ,
TomouUTOs eyeveTo Tots ‘IooKpatous TE Kal Ioatov Koopov-
> ‘\
pevos Tapayyé\paow, el py Tas “Apiototédous Téxvas
efeualev.
rT
‘OvK €or erupos Adyos obTOS’, @ dite “Appate, odd’
€x Tov “Apiototé\ous Texvav TaV vVaTepov eLevexPevoav
ot Anpocbevous Adyou cuveTadyOnoav aha kal Erépas
Twas eloaywyds: UTép av ev idia dSnléoow ypadn Ta
SoxovvTd por: Todds yap 6 Epi avTaY Oyos, Ov Ov
Kah@s eiyev eTépas ypadys Toun~at Tapepyov. ev S€
T® TapovT. TovTO TELpdcopar davepov ToinoaL, OTL
Anpoobévous axpalovtos non KaTa THY TodiTELaY Kal
Tovs emipaveaTatous EipNnKOTos aya@vas TOUS TE OuKAaVLKOUS
Kal Tous Snpnyopikovs Kai Oavpalopevov dia macys THS
‘EdAddos émt Sewdtnte Noywv TdéTE 6 diidcodos Tas
pytopikas eypaie Teyvas. avadyKyn O lows TpaToOY, Oca |
tmapéhaBov ék TOV KOWOY LtaTopLa@Y, as KaTéhuToV uty
ol Tovs Biovs Tov avdpav cuvTa€dpevol, TpoELTELY. TOLy-
copar O€ ao Anpoabevous THY apyyy.
IV
Otros é€yevvyOy pev eviavT@ TPOTEPOV THS EKaTOOTHS
> , » \ / 5 4 Ss 3
Odvpmiddos: apyovtos b€ TywoKpatous eis eros Hv EuBe-
stom / % x / aN »
Bykos értakao0éxatov Snpoctous dé hdyous ypEaTo
, > \ , + > NS \\ ,
ypadew emt Ka\\toTpartov apxovTos €lLKOOTOV Kal TEWTTOV
ETOS EXWV. Kal EXTW AUTO TPATOS TAY Ev OLKaTTHpPIM
/ \
katacKkevacbevtav ayovwy 6 Kata “Avdpotiwvos, ov
¥ A 8 , ~ 4 \ ib ,
eypape Avodwpw To KpivovT. TO WHdiopa Tapavdpor,
A ‘ ‘\ 5 \ / 4 5 \ /
Kal KaTa TOV avTOV yxpovov ETEepos [emt Kad\uotpdtou
12 Toure B. 13 GJavuafouévous B. 16 ds MB Pals: om. O.
21 lacunam indicavit Weilius | 6¢ Herwerdenus: te libri. 26 én Kad-
Austparov apxovTos] uncis sepsit Herwerdenus tanquam emblema manifestum.
724
FIRST LETTER TO AMMAEUS. 57
the rivalry of the ages, would not have risen so high if he had
only obeyed the precepts of Isocrates and Isaeus and had
not mastered the Rheforic of Aristotle.
III
‘That story is not true! my dear Ammaeus, nor did the
Rhetoric of Aristotle, which was issued at a later date, govern
the composition of the speeches of Demosthenes. These
were indebted to other teachers, concerning whom I will state
my views in a separate work, since the subject needs full
discussion and could not well be treated by the way. Mean-
while I will endeavour to show that, at the time when
Aristotle wrote his Rhetoric, Demosthenes was already at the
height of his public career and had delivered his most cele-
brated speeches, forensic and deliberative, and was famous
throughout Greece for his eloquence.. And perhaps I ought
first of all to mention the facts I have taken from the
current histories, which the compilers of biographies have
bequeathed to us. I will begin with Demosthenes.
AY)
Demosthenes was born in the year preceding the hundredth
Olympiad. In the archonship of Timocrates he had entered
upon his seventeenth year....He commenced to write public
speeches in the archonship of Callistratus, when twenty-five
years of age. The first of his forensic speeches is that against
Androtion, written for Diodorus, who was arraigning the pro-
posal of Androtion as unconstitutional. Another belonging
to the same period—that of the archonship of Callistratus—is
1 Stesichorus, Fragm. 26 Bergk.
10
58 DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSUS.
» 7 | c \ io) > “a aA > ‘\ tA ,
apxovros|, 6 TEpt TOV aTEdEL@V, OV avTOS dLEHeETO, XapteE-
oTatos atavrwv Tov oywv Kal ypadiKkdtatos. emt €
¢ “A ‘\ r / > > 7 ,
Avotipov Tov peta KadXdtotparov év “AOnvaiow tpeTnv
> a
eire Onpnyoplayv, nv emvypadhovow ot | Tods pyTopiKods
Tivakas CUVTAEAVTES ‘TEPL TOV TULMOPLOV’* EV 7) TAPEKANEL
\ > 4 \ 4 \ ‘\ 4 4
tovs “A@nvaiovs py Ave THY pos Bacitéa yevowevny
eipyvnv pnde mpotépovs apxew Tov mohemov, eav py
TAPATKEVATWVTAL THY VaUTLKHY OUVapLV, Ev 7 TELaTHVY
elyov ioXUV, Kal TOV TPOTOY THS TapackevHs avTOS VTO-
/ See \ 4 “~ ‘\ 4 A
tierar. emt d€ Qovdyjpov tov peta Ardtysov ap€avtos
Tov TE Kata TiyoKpatouvs oyov eéypawe Avodopw Ta
poKp you yp pe 7
KpivovTt Tapavouev tov TimoKpatn Kal Tov Tept THs
Meyaloro\rav Bonfeias SnunyopiKov avTos amryyyeure.
\ \ , ¥ > , » > 7? a r
peta O€ Oovdnpov eaTw ApioTodynpos apywv, eh od TaV
pay ap) NE 5 a“ » & SS x / 5 - ry 7
Kata Pidizov Onunyopiav npEato, Kat hoyov ev TH ONO
dufero TEepi THS aTOGTOANS TOU EEviKOY GTpaTEvpaTosS
\ la , lal la > , >
Kal Tov d€ka dvyadiKov Tpinpav eis Makedoviav. €v
4 Cos / \ XN ‘\ > / ¥
TOUTW TW YpOVvw Kat TOY KaTa ApLoTOoKpatous eypawe
hoyov EvOukhet 7@ Sid|Kovt. Tapavopwv To wHdiopa. 726
€7l O€ Oe€Adov Tov peta AproTodnpov THV TEpt Podiwvy
amnyyere Snpryyoptav, év 4 meiMer Tovs “APnvatovs Kata-
hvoat THY oluyapytav avTa@v Kal TOV Snpmov eevoepooat.
emt d€ Kah\tuayov tod tpitov pera O&€ehhov apEavTos
tpets du€feTo Snpyyopias Tapakahav “APynvatovs BoyPevav
‘OdvrvOiois atooTEethat Tots TokEoUpLEVOLS VITO PidUT7TOV,
TpOTHV pev HS EoTW apyn “Emi To\N@V pev dey av TIS
& avdpes “APnvatot pou Soxet’- dSevtépay de ‘Ovyt tavra
TaploTatat pow yryvooKkew @ avdpes AOnvatou: tpitnv
to doupjdov O Geodjuov s Hidnuov Sylburgio auctore r. 13 Onunyoptkov]
Weilius, 6nunyoprxér by libri. 14 OovKvdidnuov O Oeddnuov s Ev¥dnpor r.
17 puyadickav MBO vyadixav Pal s: raxuxGv Boehneckius yadikGy uncis inclusit
Reiskius e vocabulo medii aevi yaNeGv (i. q. TpenpSv) natum ratus.
20 Oececcddov et 23 Oécc¢adov Sylburgio auctore r. 24 Onuryoplas] Herwer-
denus, 6yunyoptkous libri: cp. rpwrnv 26, devrépay 27, tpirny 28.
725
FIRST LETTER TO AMMAEUS. 59
the speech on the Exemptions. This he delivered himself; it
is the most graceful and the best written of all his speeches.
Under Diotimus, who succeeded Callistratus, he pronounced
before the Athenians his first parliamentary oration, that
entitled Ox the Navy Boards in the bibliographical lists of the
orators. In this speech he urged the Athenians not to break
the peace concluded with the Persian King nor be the first to
make war, unless they should have organised their navy, in
which their chief strength lay. He himself suggests a method
of organisation. Under Thudemus, who succeeded Diotimus
as archon, he wrote the speech Against Timocrates for the
use of Diodorus, who was prosecuting Timocrates as the
proposer of an unconstitutional measure. The oration Ox
the Relief of the Megalopolitans he delivered himself in the
assembly. Thudemus was succeeded by Aristodemus, in whose
archonship Demosthenes began his orations against Philip,
and delivered a speech before the people on the dispatch of
the mercenary force and of the flying squadron of ten galleys
to Macedonia!. At this time he also wrote his speech Agaznst
Aristocrates for Euthycles, who was arraigning an unconsti-
tutional proposal. Under Theellus, who came next after
Aristodemus, he delivered his oration Ox the Rhodians, in
which he sought to persuade the Athenians to abolish the
Rhodian oligarchy and enfranchise the commons. Under
Callimachus, the second archon in succession to Theellus, he
delivered three orations, urging the Athenians to send re-
inforcements to the Olynthians, against whom war was being
waged by Philip. The first begins, ‘In many instances, men
of Athens, one may see’; the second, ‘Not the same thoughts
- the third,
>
present themselves to my mind, men of Athens*
1 Demosth. PAzlipp. 1. 22. 2 Demosth. Olynth. U. 1.
3 Demosth. Olynth. 111. 5.
10
15
20
25
60 DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSUS.
uy
> \ la “A
dé “Avti to\NGv ay @ avdpes “APnvator ypnudtov.” Kara
“ 4 ‘\ ¥ Ne ‘\ / ,
TOUTOV yéypamTat TOV apxYovTa Kat 6 KaTa Mewdiov ddyos,
a lal an
ov auveragato peta | THY YELpoToviay Hv 6 SHpos avToD
KATEYELPOTOVHCE.
, ‘a \ , / ¥ /
Méypt tov wept daédexa Adywr eipynKa Sypociwr,
> y >
ev ois elou Snpnyoprxol pev entra, Sikavixot d€ merTe,
Y »” an na
ATAVTES <OVTES> TpOTEPOL TOV “ApLoToTeédOUS TEYVaD,
» rn qn
@S EK TE TOV LOTOPOYpEVwWY TEPL TOU aVOPOS aTrOdElEW
‘ > “A ¢ ) > wn , > la) > ,
KQaL EK TWVY UT auTOU ypapevTar, evtev0ev apEdpevos.
V
> / en \ ay T , \ / \ S
Aptototedns vios fev Hv Nikopayov To yévos Kat THY
/ > / > / S > “A ‘
TéexUNY avadepovTos els Mayaova Tov “AcK\nTLOv, pHTpOs
be ra) £) > , \ las > r / \ b) /
€ DavoTidos atroydvov Twos TaV ek XahkiOos THY aroLKlay
> , > SS , > / \\ XN \ > ‘
ayayouTov els Xtayepa: eyevvynOn dé KaTa THY EvernKOTTHV
Kat evatnv “Odvpmidda Avotpepods “APnvnow apxovTos
Tpiow eTect Anuoobevous | mperBvtepos. emi dé Iodv-
(nov apyxovtos TehevTHYTavTOS TOV TATPOs OKT@KALOEKATOV
eros exav eis “AOynvas HdOev, kai ocvotabets ddTor
/ > aA , \ > G > 4 \
xpovov eikooaeTn Suetpube ovv avT@. amoavovtos dé
II\arwvos é7t Oeodihov apyovtos amynpe pos “Epptav
Tov “ATapvéws TUpavvov Kal TPLETH Ypovov Tap avT@
duatpipas em EvBovdov apyovTos eis Mutiynvyny exwpt-
oOy: exeifev 5€ pds Pidurmov wyeTo Kata IvOddorov
apxovrTa, Kai duerpube ypovov okTaeTn Tap avT@ KaOyyov-
pevos “Ade€dvdpov: peta dé THv Didimmou TedevTHV eT
Evaweérov apyovtos adixopevos eis “APjnvas eoyddalev eév
Avkelw ypovov érav d0deKa. TO dé TpLEKALOEKATO, META
mv ~AheEdvdpov terevTny emt Kydiooddépov apxovtos
5 Adywv wy e dittogr. libri. 7 ovtes inseruit Weilius.
5 mpecBirepos] Wolfius, rpecBurépou libri. 20 damapvéws Pal amapvéwy B.
1 dvatpivas] Wolfius, tpivas libri | MureAjvyv] Herwerdenus, pcrudAqvny libri.
2 &xero Pal ypxero s.
727
728
FIRST LETTER TO AMMAEUS. 61
“You would, men of Athens, give a great price!’ During this
same archonship was written the speech Against Meidias,
which Demosthenes composed after the vote of censure
passed on Meidias by the people.
I have so far mentioned twelve public speeches, seven of
the deliberative, five of the forensic order. All of these are
earlier than the Rhetoric of Aristotle, as I will prove both
from what others relate concerning that author and from his
own writings. I begin with his biography.
V
Aristotle was the son of Nicomachus, who traced his
pedigree and his profession to Machaon, the son of Aesculapius.
His mother, Phaestis, was descended from one of those who
led the colony to Stageira from Chalcis. He was born in
the ninety-ninth Olympiad, when Diotrephes was archon at
Athens, and was, therefore, three years older than Demosthenes.
In the archonship of Polyzelus, after his father’s death, he
went to Athens, being then eighteen years of age. Having
been introduced to the society of Plato, he spent a period of
twenty years with him. Upon Plato’s death, in the archon-
ship of Theophilus, he repaired to Hermias, despot of
Atarneus, and after spending three years with him retired
to Mytilene in the archonship of Eubulus. Thence he
proceeded, during the archonship of Pythodotus, to the court
of Philip, and spent eight years there as Alexander’s tutor.
After the death of Philip, in the archonship of Evaenetus, he
returned to Athens, and taught in the Lyceum for a space
of twelve years. In the thirteenth year, after the death of
Alexander in the archonship of Cephisodorus, he betook
1 Demosth. Olynth. I. 1.
62 DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSUS.
> / > y / / los / SN La} c id
amdpas eis Xa\kida voow TedevTA, Tpia pos Tots EEN-
Kovta Budcas E77.
VI
rm lol ȴ A nw
Tatra pev ovv cot a TapadedoKacW Hy ol TOV
, im } \ > , “A be IetiN c | /
Biov Tov avdpos avaypaavtes. a d€ avTos 0 dhulowogos 729
5UTep eavToD ypaher Tacav adarpovpevos Emiyelpnow
tav yapilerOar Bovdopevoy avit@ Ta py TpooyKovTa
‘ A » e 2QN , an N
(zpos modXdots addous wy ovdev Seopa peuvyncbar Kara
‘ / aA 4 > Las 7 4 / “A
To Tapov, a TEOnKEY Ev TH TPwTH BVBAw® TavTHS TIS
TpaypyLateias)* WS OV [MELPAKLOY HV, OTE TAS PYNTOPLKAS
10 @uvEeTaTTETO TéyVas, GAN EV TH KpPAaTiaTH YyEyoves aKmy
Kal TPOEKOEOWKaS NON TAS TE TOTLKAS TUVTAEELS Kal TAS
° ‘ \ \ / / 3 \ > ,
avaduTiKas Kal Tas peHodskas, TeKNpiwy eaTiV ioyupo-
> , Q \ > , > , a
Tata. apkdpevos yap Tas wdehelas emiderkvve, as
/ c ¢ AS / ‘al ‘\ / ,
Tepieiinpev 6 pyTopiKos hoyos, TavTa Kata héEw ypader-
- , 5; > \ c c \ S , N , >
15 ‘ypyoy.os 0 €oTW 7 pyTopLKyH dia ye TO PvE civat
Kpelttw TahnOn Kal Ta Sikava ToOY evavTiwv: WaTE EaV
pL) KATA TO TPOTHKOV al Kpioets yivwvTar, avayKn dv
e ‘\ ec “A lal > > \ »” > , ¥
avtov nTTAac0ar: TovTo 6 é€oTW akvoy EemiTYyLyOEWS. ETL
de XN 3) a7 0. > \ > | “ ¥ > /
€ 7pos Evlous, OVd El THY aKpiBEeaTaTHY EXoMEV ETLOTH- 730
ce > > > / Lo) 4 ,
20 NV, padwov am exeivys Tetoar héyovtas: diwWacKahia
/, > c \ ‘\ > / / ~ \ > 4
yap €oTw 6 Kata THY eTLaTHUNVY NOyos, TovTO SE adv-
vatov’ ad\ avayKyn dua TOV KoWaV ToLELTOaL Tas TiCTELS
Kal TOUS dyous, WaTEP Kal EV TOLS TOTLKOLS héyomeY TEpL
THS Tpos TOVs Trohdovs evTEvEEws.’
VII
25 Tept d€ Tapaderypatwy <kat evOvpnudatwv> mpoe-
hopevos eye, OTL THY adTHY TadT exe SUVapW Tals
12 loxupérata| Weilius, isxupérepa libri. 15 Oud te A(ristoteles) dua
6é O. 17 py (Aristotelis) t(ranslatio vetus), Sylburgius: séy libri, om. A
codex Parisinus, recte fortasse uncis inclusit Weilius. 18 avroy libri: abrav
As. 20 didacKaNias A. 23 Tots Tomixots] Sylburgius ci. A, Tots mroXcrexois
libri. 25 Kal évOuunudtwyv add. Spengelius.
FIRST LETTER TO AMMAEUS. 63
Pe ]
himself to Chalcis, where he fell ill and died at the age
of sixty-three.
VI
Such, then, are the records transmitted to us by the
biographers of Aristotle. What the philosopher says of
himself in his own writings completely cuts away the
ground beneath the feet of those who wish to assign him
honours to which he is not entitled. In addition to many
other proofs, none of which I need recall at present, there is
the passage he has written in the First Book of the treatise in
question. Here we have the strongest evidence that he was
no stripling when he composed the Retoric, but in the prime
of life, having previously published his treatises the Tofics,
the Analytics, and the Methodics. At the commencement of
the section in which he sets forth the advantages embraced in
the art of rhetoric, he has the following words which are here
quoted as they stand: ‘Rhetoric is useful because truth and
justice are, by nature, stronger than their opposites. If, there-
fore, judicial trials do not end as they should, a man’s defeat
must be due to himself; and this is deserving of censure.
Moreover, in addressing some audiences, it is not easy, even
when we possess the most exact and methodical knowledge,
to carry conviction by means of it. For methodical statement
is a kind of instruction; and instruction is here out of the
question. but in our proofs and arguments we must make use
of processes understood by all, as we remarked in the 7opics
when treating of the manner of addressing the multitude!’
VII
In the passage in which he sets himself to show that
‘examples’ and ‘enthymemes’ are equivalent to ‘inductions’
1 Aristot. Ahef. 1. 1, 12.
64 DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSUS.
eTaywyais Kal Tots TVANOYLOMOLS, TAVTA TEpL THS avadv-
TURNS Kal peHodiKns Tpaypateas TIOnaL: ‘Tov dé dua TOD
4, xX 4 4, , ‘\ -) “~
detxvud bat <7)> haiver Oar deikvvc Oat, Kabarep Kai ev ToLs
8 r a \ \ > foe) \ be ON /, | X\
LaNEKTLKOLS TO LEV ETAYWYY ETTL, TO OE TVANOYLO LOS, | <TO 731
\ , , A > “w > ¢ , »¥ A
5 O€ hawopevos ovAOyLTpLOS>, Kal EvTAVO dpotws: ETL yap
A \ , 5 , A ’ ) 4
TO pev Tapddeypa eTaywyy, TO 5 evOvunpa cvddopio-
/ ‘\ \ 4 / / nw \
[L0s, TO S€ hatvopevoy hawdpevos ovAdoyLo Mos: Kaho yap
> , \ c QA / , \\
evovpnpa pev pntopiKov ovdd\oytopor, Tapacerypa be
eTaywynyv PHTOpLKHY* TAVTES O€ TAS TLIOTELS TOLOUYTAaL OLA
10 TOU <OELKYUVaL 7) Tapadelypata héyovTes 7 evOvpHpaTa,
KaL Tapa TavTa ovoev' aT ElTTEp Kal OAws avayKy
, xX» > , th c nw wn
ovdhoy.Copevov H €mayovTa> SEeLKYUVAaL OTLOUD, dndov
5 np TOUTO EK TOV avahuUTLKOD, avarykaov EKATEPOV
<avT@V EkaTEépw> TOUVTwWY TO auto etvat. Tis 8 éott
. 4 \ 5 4 ‘\ >
15 dtadopa TApadety[LaTos kat evOuvpypatos, pavepov ek
TOV TOTLK@V" EKEL Yap TEpt ov\doyto ov KQL eTaywyns
¥ 9 na
ElpnTat TpoTepov, OTL TO fev E7l TOAM@Y Kal Opmotwv
detkvuc bat OTL OVTWS EXEL EKEL MEV ETAYWYY ETT, evtavla
be Tapaderypa’ TO O€ TLV@V OVTWV ETEPOV | TL Ola TATA 732
A aA nan > e
200upPaivey Tapa TavTAa TH TAUTA Eval 7H Kalodov 7 ws
5 \ XX , 5 ~ \ / > nw XA > 4
emt TO TOV, Exel prev GUAAOYLT LOS, EvTadOa d€ evOvpnpa
La) \ \ \ 9 c , » >] ‘\ X
KahetTaL. bavepov d€ Kal OTL EKATEPOV EXEL ayalov 70
eloos TIS pyTopetas: Kkabamep <yap> Kal &V Tots peOo-
OLKOLS ElpnTar, Kal €v TOUTOLS Opolws ExEL. O pEV OvV
25 ApiatotéAns vmép éavTod yéeypade papTupopevos Suap-
pyonv, OTL TAS pyHTOpiKas TEyVAs cuveratato tpeaBvTEpos
xa
@v non Kal Tas KpatioTas OUVTAEELS TT POEKOECOMKOS.
2 6ta Tov As: 6’ adrod libri. 3 deixvucbat 7 Ss deixvucOae Pal decxvivar 7
A: om. MB | ¢aivecOar decxvivac A. 4 dvaNextixois] A, dvadurexots libri.
4,5 70 6é .c. om. libri: ex A supplevit Sylburgius. 7 70 6é paw. paw.
gudX. om. Aristotelis t et codex P | yap] dé A. g, 10 6a rod As: dca 76 libri.
Io -verba Gecxvivat...... émayovra ex A supplevit s. 14 avra@v éxarépy
ex A supplevit Sylburgius. 18 elcaywy7 libri: corr. s. 20 oupBalver
libri: corr. s | raira rw TadrTa] A, 76 Tab7’ libri. 22 6 dm xKal A.
23 THs pyropixns A | yap ex A supplevit Sylburgius.
FIRST LETTER TO AMMAEUS. 65
and ‘syllogisms,’ Aristotle has the following references to his
Analytics and his Methodics. ‘Of proofs obtained by real or
apparent demonstration there are, in Dialectic, these varieties:
induction, syllogism, and apparent syllogism. So also in
Rhetoric, where example corresponds to induction, enthy-
meme to syllogism, and apparent enthymeme to apparent
syllogism. By “enthymeme” I mean a rhetorical syllogism,
and by “example” a rhetorical induction. Everyone relies
for demonstrative proof in Rhetoric upon examples and en-
thymemes; upon these and these only. If, therefore, it is
absolutely necessary that whatever is proved should be proved
either by syllogism or by induction—and this is plain to us
from the Axalytics—it follows of necessity that enthymeme
and example are respectively identical with syllogism and
induction. The difference between example and enthymeme
is clear from the Zofzcs. In that work we have already said,
when treating of syllogism and induction, that the proving of
a rule in many similar instances is called an induction in
Dialectic and an example in Rhetoric; while the conclusion
that from certain premisses something different follows,
because of these and owing to the fact that these are true
either universally or as a general rule, is called a syllogism in
Dialectic and an enthymeme in Rhetoric. It is evident that
each form of rhetorical argument has its own strong points,
_ the statement made in the Wethodics holding good here also’.
In writing thus Aristotle has given unequivocal evidence
about himself to the effect that he composed the Rhetoric in
his later years and after the publication of his most important
1 Aristot. Ret. 1. 2, 8—ro.
R. 5
Io
15
20
25
66 DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSTS.
re ee 1 ® a , A , Y
TavT eotw €€ ay, 0 TpoEopyy TonTaL Pavepov, OTL
TpOTEPOVvTLW OL TOV PYATOpOS ayaves TaV TOV ditowddov
TEYVOY, ikavas aTrodedety Oar vopilw: Et ye O pev ELKOOTOV
\ / ¥ ¥ ¥ / \
Kal Té€umTov ETos Exwv HpEato Toditever Oar Kal Snpynyo-
a“ \ / > fe / c \ ‘\ AN
pew Kat Ndyous eis duxaoTHpia ypadew, 6 d€ KaTa TOs
> ‘\ / ¥ wn , \ 4 9
avTovs ypovous ett | ouvynv Idtwve Kat Sverpupev ews
ETOV ETTA Kal TPLAKOVTA OUTE TYOANS WyovpEvos ovVTE
idtay TETOWNKaS aiperw.
VIII
> i) Y »” , y \ X\ wn
Ei 6€ tis ovTas eotar SvoEpis WOTE Kal TpOS TadTA
avTiheyew, OTL Lev VOTEPOV eypadnoav al pytopiKat
TEXVaL TOV avadUTLK@Y TE Kal peBoduk@v Kal TOTLKOY,
6poroyav adnfes eivar, ovdev b€ Kwhvetv éywv atacas
4
TavTas KaTecKevaKevar TOV Pilocodov Tas TpaypaTeas
» / A / \ A XA 5 4
ETL TALOEVO[LEVOV Tapa IIddtwr., wuypav mev Kat amt Qavov
emixelpnow elodywv, Bralopevos d€ TO KAKOUPYOTATOV
qn lal Ly \
TOV ETLYELPNUATwY TroLEeLY TLavaTEpoY, OTL KaL TO pH
SN s 4 /, > , > \ a \ a , Loy
ElKos yiveorUat Tote ElKOS, adels a TpOS TaUTa hEyeLY ELYOV
Faw \ > lal , na , , A >
ETL TAS AUVTOV TpeWomat TOV diioadpov papTuptas, as eV
™ Tpitn BYB\w Tov Texvav TEOnKE TEpi THS eTadhopas
‘\ , 4 , ¢ las \ las 4
Kata héEw ov7Tw ypadwv: ‘tav O€ petabopav TeTTApwV
n~ lal c
ovTaV, EvOOKMOvoL palloTa at KaTa avahoylav: ws
Ilepuxdys ebn THv vedtyTa THY aTohopEVHY ev TH TOMO
A b) , 5) nw , 97 yy X\ ȴ >
outs | nhavicbar ek THs TOMEWS, WOTEP EL TLS TO Eap EK
Tov eviavtov ée&éhor.. . Kal Kndioddotos omovdalovTos
Xdpytos edObvas Sovvar Tav wept TOV OhvyAiakov TOdEWov
16 mavwrepov] Us, miBavwraroy libri. 17 ylvec@ac} Weilius,
vyiveras libri. 19 7éBecke libri. 21 ws] womep A. 24 €&édow* Kal
libri: é£é\oe: kai Aerrivns mepl Aaxedatpoviwy, ox Gy mepudety thy ‘EAdOa ére-
popbadpmov yevouevny’ Kal A, s. 25 xdpiros MBO om. Pal corr. s | rv MB:
Tov Pals, om. OA.
733
734
FIRST LETTER TO AMMAEUS. 67
treatises. These are the proofs by which I think I have
sufficiently demonstrated what I proposed to make clear, that
the orator had practised the art of speaking before the
philosopher had formulated the theory. In fact, Demosthenes
began at the age of twenty-five to engage in public affairs, to
address the assembly, and to write speeches for the law-
courts. About the same period Aristotle was still a disciple
of Plato, and he lived to be seven-and-thirty without any
school to lead and without any body of personal adherents.
VATT
Possibly, however, some captious critic will raise an objec-
tion even in the face of these conclusions. He may admit
that the Rhetoric was written later than the Analytics and
Methodics and Topics, but maintain that Aristotle may very
well have composed all these treatises while still a disciple in
the school of Plato. Such a contention is absurdly improbable;
it is a violent attempt to commend the wretched paradox that
it is likely that the unlikely may at times occur. Omitting,
therefore, what I could have said in reply, I turn to the pieces
of evidence which Aristotle himself furnishes in the Third
Book of the Rhetoric, where he has these words (here quoted
_word for word) on the subject of metaphor: ‘ Of the four kinds
of metaphor, the proportional are the most in repute. It is
thus that Pericles compared the loss of the youth of a state in
war to taking the spring out of the year....So also, when
Chares was eager to have his conduct in the Olynthian War
submitted to a scrutiny, Cephisodotus impatiently exclaimed
5—2
10
15
20
25
68 DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSUTS.
Hyavaxte. Packer avTov els mVLypa TOV SHmov ayyovTa
Tas evOvvas Tepacbat d.ddvat.’
IX
Ovrwot pev 57) caddas adros 6 diiocodos amoderkvvet
XN XN > \ / , c > > “A
peta Tov ‘OdvvOiakov 7ohemov yeypappévas UT avTov
Tas Téyvas. ovToS O emt Kaddipdyou yéyovey apyxovTos,
ws Snot Putdyopos ev Extn BvBrAw THs ’ATOidos Kata
héEtv ovTwW ypadov: ‘Kahdipayos Ilepyaonfev: emt
tovtov ‘OdvrGiots BONGIOY S70 to idim7ov Kat
USES AOnvale uso, ot “A@nvator cuppaytay Te
emouncavto * * * Kat Banya emepibay TeATagTas Oic-
xedlous, Tpunpers d€ TpidkovTa Tas | wera Xapyros Kat
a fa > “A 9) ¥ \ >) 2 \
as ouveT\yipwoay oK7d. eEmeta dieEehPav odiya Ta
‘\ / te vd ‘¢ \ \ \ > ‘\ /
peTacy yevopeva TIOyo Tavtt: ‘epi dé TOV avToV ypdvoY
= , a > \ , \ , lo , \
Xadkidéwv Tav emt Opakns OiBopevav 7@ Toh€uw Kat
> Yr lol
mpeoBevoapevav “AOjvale Xapidnpov avrots emeprbav
c ») a“ XN > th / / a ¥
ot “A@nvato. tov é€v E\\nomovtw otpatnyov: os Exav
OKTwKAaLOEKA TPIApELsS Kal TEATATTAS TETPAKLOYXLALOUS,
ce “~ \ Ve XN c SS > > 7
immets O€ TEVTHKOVTA Kal ExaTov HAOeV Eis THY TE Tlad-
4 \ \ 4 39713, fA \ \ ,
Aynvnv kat THv Bottiatay per Odvvbiwy Kat THY xopar
3 , b ¥ > (2 \ Lal / , es
eropOnce. exe? vrep THS TpiTnS Tuppayxias eye
taut’ ‘Tadw O€ Tov ‘OhvvOiov mpéo Bes atooteavTov
> ‘ > /, S / ss 7 > LN
els Tas “AOnvas Kal Seopévav py Tepidety avTovS KaTa-
7 > \ ‘\ Lo) c 4 ,
modepnOevtas, aka Tpos Tals vTapyovoats duvdpeot
7wépar Bonfevay pry Eeviknvy adXN avtav “APnvator,
ereuev avtois 6 SHos Tpinpes ev ETépas éemTaKaldeka
1 avtov MBO: om. Pals A | &yxovrta] Abreschius, dyayévra libri, €xovra A.
2 Ootva A. 3 Obdtwoi] Reiskius, otrws ef libri. 5 ovros] s, odTws
libri. 6 BiBdw libri. ro in MO lacuna est xviii fere litterarum post
ErorngayTo. It xdptros B Pal O 12 6x7 MO: om. B Pals. 13 avrov
om. O. 14 Opdxis B Pal. 17 TeTpaxicxiNlos MO. 18 els rH Te]
Us, els ryv els 7é Bi ets Tre MB*OPs. 18, 19 maddjvew Pal. 19 ddur Giver
B. 23 duvdpeva O.
73
On
FIRST LETTER TO AMMAEUS. 69
that he wanted to secure such a scrutiny while he had the
people by the throat’.
IX
Thus does the philosopher himself clearly prove that he
wrote the Rhesoric after the Olynthian War. Now that war
took place in the archonship of Callimachus, as Philochorus
shows in the Sixth Book of his A/¢thzs, where his words
(exactly given) are: ‘Callimachus of the deme Pergase.
In his time the Olynthians, attacked by Philip, sent ambas-
sadors to Athens. The Athenians made an alliance with
ENCM, «.... and sent to their aid two thousand targeteers, and
thirty galleys under the command of Chares, as well as eight
others which they put into commission for the occasion*’
Next, after describing the few intervening events, he proceeds :
‘About the same time the Chalcidians of the Thracian sea-
board were harassed by the war and sent an embassy to
Athens. The Athenians dispatched to their assistance Chari-
demus, who held command in the Hellespont. Charidemus
brought with him eighteen galleys and four thousand targeteers
and a hundred and fifty horsemen. Supported by the Olyn-
thians, he advanced into Pallene and Bottiaea, and ravaged
the country®. Later on he writes thus on the subject of the
third alliance: ‘The Olynthians sent a fresh embassy to the
Athenians, begging them not to see them irretrievably ruined,
but to send out, in addition to the troops already there,
a force consisting not of mercenaries but of Athenian citizens.
Thereupon the Athenian people sent them other seventeen
1 Aristot. het. UI. 10, 7.
Philochorus, Fragm. 132 (Fragm. Hist. Graec. 1. p. 405). 3 id. 2.
wn
Io
15
20
70 DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSUS.
‘ A a c , , ae a
<kal> TV ToOXLT@Y Om\TAas duty tAtous Kal LTTELS TpLa-
‘\ “~ lal
Koolovs €&v vavolW immnyots, oTpatnyov S€ Xdpyta Tod
aoTO\OV TavTos.’
Xx
> , \ > \ an G , \
A7oxypn pev ovv Kal TadtTa pynbérvta ghavepay trov-
A \ , An 5) , \ > , |
joa THY diioTiyniay Tov abiovvTwV Tas ’ApiotoTédous
3 4 la XN / A ¥ 4 A
e(yhaxévar Téxvas TOV Anpoobévn, os On TéTTapas pev
eTuyev eipnkas Snunyopias PiliamuKds, Tpets dé “EAAyve-
4 iA \ / / > , 4
Kas, TevTE € Noyous Sypoctous eis SuxacTyHpia yeypadas,
aA \ x lol c A
ovs ovdels ay eyou SiaBadety ws edTEhEls TWas Kal havdous
‘\ \ > / / b] \ S “A >
Kal wnoev eripatvovTas TEXVLKOV, ETELON TPO TOV “ApioTo-
Téhous auveTayOnoay Texvav. ov pV Eywye MEXpL TOVTOU
\ 7 > ‘\ \\ \ x > A“ {A
mpoeMav orjoopat, aha Kat Tovs adhovs adrov héyous
‘ 4 > > ~ > 4 4, Ni
Tovs pahioT evdoKpovvTas eTLdelEw Tovs TE SnnyopiKovs
Kal Tovs SuKaviKovs TpOTEpoy aTnyyedpevous THS EKOOTEWS
TOUTWY TOV TEXVOD, peapTupe TaN AUTO \YP@pLevos “A pu-
, \ N ¥ > , >)? a .
oToTevel. peta yap apyxovta KadXipayov, ep ov Tas
> ” A
ets Oldvvbov Bonfetas améorerkav “AOnvator teva bevtes
c o
v0 Anpoo bévous, Oedduros Eat apxyav, Kal’ dv expatnoe
A > / lal
™ms Odvrbiwv Toews Pidur7os. ereta Sepiotokhys,
27? a \ , A \ , an
ep ob THY TéuTTHVY TOV Kata PiiaTOV SyHunyopLav
QA ww nw nr nw
amnyyere Anuoobevys rept THs pudakys | TOV VHT LWTOV
\ a > SBN / aN e > > Sirs ras A \
Kal TOV EV NOTOVT@ TOhEWY, YS ETT apyy: ‘A pev
c na > » > va , ¢c lal a3) es aie)
npets @ avdpes AOnvator SedvrvypeOa evpetv, TavT eoTtiv.
\ \ , > , 27>? a A a
peta O€ BeutctoKhéa “Apyias, é€f oF Tapawet Tots
‘ / lal
"AOnvaiow py Kwvery Diturmov THs “Apduxtvovias per-
4 XN > \ / / x 4
éxew poe ahoppyy diddvat Toh€wov vewort TeTompevous
1 Kal trav] Radermacherus, 7@v libri, tay 6€ s. 8 mévre 5€ Aéyous
dnuoctovs mg M rubro: zrepi dé Adyous SnAwoe ods MO Pal s mrepi dE Nbyous Sniwoee
ods eis 6€ EA\nviKas’ epi dé Aédyous Gn\doe ods B epi dé €' Abyous Sypoatous
Reiskius. g diaBaddejty Pal diaBareis O. 13 Tovs (ante wddor’)
MBOs 7o@ Pal. 15 Tv om. B. 18 OeddirOs err libri | dy] qv B.
expatice MO éxparycev B.
736
737
FIRST LETTER TO AMMAEUS. 71
galleys, together with two thousand heavy-armed infantry
and three hundred horsemen conveyed in transports, the
whole force being composed of citizens. The entire ex-
pedition was under the command of Chares’,’
Xx
Enough has been already said to expose the vain pre-
tensions of those who affirm that the Aetoric of Aristotle
inspired Demosthenes. Before the date of the Ahetoric,
Demosthenes had already delivered four orations against
Philip and three on the affairs of Greece. He had also
written for the law-courts five public speeches, which no one
could brand as inferior, poor, and showing no signs of
technical mastery, because composed earlier than the Rhetoric.
Having, however, advanced thus far, I shall not halt,
but show that his most famous speeches generally, whether
addressed to the people or to the law-courts, had been
delivered before the publication of the Retorzc. Once more
Aristotle himself shall be my witness. After the archonship
of Callimachus, in whose year of office the Athenians
sent their reinforcements to Olynthus at the instance of
Demosthenes, came the archonship of Theophilus, in whose
time Olynthus fell into the hands of Philip. Next came
Themistocles, under whom Demosthenes pronounced the fifth
of his orations against Philip. This speech, which is con-
cerned with the protection of the islanders and the cities of
_ the Hellespont, begins as follows: ‘This, men of Athens, is
what I have been able to contrive?’ Under Archias, the
successor of Themistocles, Demosthenes urged the Athenians
not to attempt to hinder Philip from becoming a member
of the Amphictyonic Council, nor to give him an occasion
l id. 20. 2 Demosth. Philipp. I. 30.
nn
20
30
2 DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSUS.
~~
nm ,
THY Tpos avTov eipyvynv: apxy dé TavTns THS Snuyyoptas
> \ Y «¢ an \ 5 » > lal ‘\ et,
€otiv noe’ “Opa pev & avdpes “APnvator Ta TapovTa
mpaypata. peta de Apyiav ext EvBovdos: eita Avkt-
27? a \ c , an A an
okos, ef ob THY EBdopny Tov PiltrmiKoY SyunyopLav
id \ \ 3 4 / 4
duefero mpos Tas €x Ilekomovyyoov mpecBelas, TavTnv
\ > \ , go > 4 S > A ,
THY apynv Toodpevos: ‘Otay @ avdpes APnvator hoyou
/ ) \ / ¥ » / > >
ylyvevtar. peta AvKLoKOY EOTLY apXoV Iv0dor70s, éd
& \ > / la la la 4 \
ob THY oyddnv TOV DilurTiKaV SnpnyopLtav SiéHeTo pds
\ , , a > > A co) ¥ 8
Tovs Pidia7ov mpécBes, ys eat apyn “OQ avdpes
"A@nvator, ovK e€oTw, oOmws ai aitiat, Kal TOV KaT
> 4 Lig / 97 \ > 4 3Q7 ~
Aioyivou avvera€ato hoyov, ote Tas evS¥vas edidov THs
/ , lan SiN \ 9 \ /
devtépas mpecBelas THs emi Tods OpKous. peta I1vOddoTov
¥ vs , he) ® \ > / PS) aN a \
€oTt Lwovyevyns, eb ov Thy Evatynv Ove\nr\vJEv Kata
Dirizrov Synpylyopiay mept Tav ev Xeppovyow ozpa-
A Y \ A ‘\ N , ,
TiwT@v, wa pr StatvOn 7d peta Aromeifous Eeviror,
> \ ¥ , <n \ > » > A
apxnv €xoveav TavTnv: ‘"Kdoe pev @ avdpes “APnvator
»
Tous h€éyovTas amavtas’: Kal Kata Tov avTOY apxovTa
‘ , > i> aA , 4 , ‘\
mv OexdTnv, &v 7 TeipaTtar SiddoKev, OTL dev THY
> , , \ , > / \ , 2
elpyvyv Piurmos Kat mporepos exheper TOV TOhELOV, 7S
€oTw apxy: ‘Mo\d@v @ avdpes “AOnvaior \oywv yvyvo-
, ) \ s , ” 5 T / 24? eS
evov. peta Lwovyevyv apxwv eat. Nukopayos, ep ov
\ lal
Thy EvoeKaTyv Snunyoptav Suehndvhe wept Tov hehuKEvan
THv elpyvynv Diturmov Kat Tovs “APnvatovs met\Oea Bulav-
, > A aa) @ 3 > Pt icra 5 rn
Tlois amoaTethar Bonfeav, Hs Eat apxyn: ‘Kat awovdata
vouiley @ avdpes “AOnvator. emetar Nuixopayw Oco-
¥ Sar e@ , \ > / ,
ppactos apxwv, ef ov mee Tovs “APnvatous yevvatas
A ¥
Uropevar TOV TOELOV ws KaTHYyyEAKOTOS avToY HON
4 \ »¥ Y , al ‘\ 7
Pidiamov: Kat eat avTyn Te\eEvTAla TOV KaTA PidtaTOV
dnpnyopiav, | a4pxnv éyovoa TavTynv: ‘OTe pev @ avdpes
> A“ 7 » > , \ > 4 ‘\
A@nvato. Pidurmos ovK Eroinoato THY ElpHyyY pos
vas, adN’ aveBddeto Tov modEpov.’
1 6€] Sylburgius, «ai libri. 6 dvdpesom. MO. 9g gudlrrous Pal, om. O.
10 O6mws ai] s, doa libri. 12 dpxous B Pals. 15 dvorddous B Pal.
25 €merac mg M rubro: émi libri. 28 «al éorw...... PiNir7rov om. B.
738
(se)
FIRST LETTER TO AMMAETS. 73
for reopening the war, now that they had recently made
peace with him. This oration begins thus: ‘I see, men
of Athens, that the present crisis’ Archias was succeeded
by Eubulus, and he by Lyciscus. It was in Lyciscus’ year of
office that Demosthenes pronounced the seventh of his ora-
tions against Philip. He there replies to the envoys from the
Peloponnese, and begins thus: ‘When, men of Athens, speeches
are made’”’ The next archon to Lyciscus was Pythodotus,
under whom Demosthenes replied to the envoys of Philip by
the delivery of the eighth of the orations which bear the king’s
name. The opening of this speech is: ‘It is not possible,
men of Athens, that the accusations’. At the same time he
also composed the speech against Aeschines, who had to
render an account of his conduct in the second embassy, the
object of which was to bind Philip by oaths. The successor
of Pythodotus was Sosigenes, under whom he delivered the
ninth oration against Philip, that on the soldiers in the
Chersonese, the aim of which was to prevent the disbandment
of the mercenaries commanded by Diopeithes. This begins:
‘It would be best, men of Athens, that all public speakers*’
Under the same archon he delivered the tenth speech, in
which he endeavoured to show that Philip was violating the
peace and was the aggressor in the war. The speech begins:
‘Although many speeches, men of Athens, are made®’ After
Sosigenes the next archon was Nicomachus, in whose time he
delivered the eleventh oration, on the subject of the violation
of the peace by Philip, and urged the Athenians to send
reinforcements to the people of Byzantium. It begins:
‘Serious as I consider, men of Athens®’ In the archonship
of Theophrastus, who followed Nicomachus, Demosthenes
urged the Athenians to sustain the war bravely, Philip having
_already declared it. This, the last of the orations against
Philip, opens thus: ‘The fact that Philip did not, men of
Athens, make peace with you, but only deferred the war’.
1 Demosth. de Pace 1.
* Demosth. Philipp. 1. 1. ® (Hegesippus) de Halonneso 1.
4 Demosth. ae Cher. t. > Demosth. PAzlzpp. I. 1.
§ [Demosth.] Philipp. Iv. 1. 7 [Demosth.] Orat. ad Philippi Epistulam i.
74 DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSUS.
XI
Y \ ‘\ 4 wa ‘ / a
Oz. d€ Kat TovTovs amavtas Tovs Adyous ovs KaT-
nplOunuar mpd THs exkddcews TOV "ApiaToTehous TEXVO@V
> 4 c la > ‘\ > / 4
amnyyerev 6 Annoobérys, adtov “Apuatotédyn wapéEopar
papTupovrTa. ap&dapevos yap ev TH Sevtépa BUBAw Tov
A ‘ / c / > > 4 ‘\ > Ve ,
5 TEXV@V TOUS TOTOUS Optle, ad av TA evOupnpara éperat,
Kal TOV €K TOU xpovov TaparapBdaver TapaTifets adT@ Ta
tapadelypata. Oynow de adriy THY TOD piioaddov NEE:
c > \ / A ® ¢ ca 4 >
adNos els TOV ypovov GKoTEt: oiov, ws 0 ‘IdiKpatyns eV
~ ‘\ c U4 4 > ‘\ ~ > 4 las > /
TH Tpos “Appod.ov, oT et Tply ToLnoar HEtov THS ELKOVOS
10 TUYELY AY TOLHoN, EOoTE av: ToncavTe O ov SaceTE;
‘ / / \ € a AG de
Hy Tolvuy, péeddovTes prev vmiayxvetobe, wafovTes Oe
adapet ole. Kat wadtw mpds TO dia OnBatwov dSuévar
/ 5 \ > , yo 2 \ “~ >
Pidimmov eis THY “ATTLKHY, OTL ei mpilv BonOnaa <eEts>
Paoxets n&lov, Uréoyovto av: aToTOV ovY Ei, OLOTL TPOELTO
15 KL ETLOTEVTEV, fL7) OLNTOVTW.
c \ , na a , ,
O d€ ypdvos obtos, ev © Pitimmos H&tov OnBatous
emi THY “ATTUKHY avT@ SovVaL Slodov UV VHTKWV TH
nv ATTLKHV avT@ Oovvat OLodoyv ViTopLLVvy nS
> los XN o~ 4 / 4 > A
€v T® TPs Pwxeis To\EULM yevoperns Bonfelas, EK TIS
KOWNS ylyveTar havepods LaTopias. Elye yap OVTwS: peETA
‘ > , 4 y¥ / A
207HV Ohvvbiov dwow apxovTos OeuretoKhéovs TuvOjKar
‘
Pilta7t@ Tpos “APnvatovs eyévovTo wept diitas Kat cup-
paylas: abrar du€uewar emtaeTH ypovov aypt Nikopayov:
emt d€ Pecoppacrov Tov peta Nixdpayov apEavtos edvOn-
oav, “A@nvaiwy péev Pihutmov aitiopevwy apyew Tov
25moheov, Pidiamov dé "APnvaious eyKadovvTos. Tas Ee
1 6€ kai] Us, 6€ d€ka libri. 4 BiB libri. 6 maparapyBavev
libri: corr. s | ad7@ om. O. 8 &dd\ws M. &\Xos €x TOU Tov xXpdvov
okorrety in A Par t. otov] ots O | ws 6 libri: ws As. g Ort] As, 6s libri |
nétov MBO s 7élous P: j&éiovv Sylburgius ex A. 10 moujcw)] A | éore] As,
édoée libri | 6° dp od A. 12 mpos TO OnBatovs dretvar A. 73 eis ex
A supplevit Sauppius. 14 el dvdre A'S: ef 66v7e libri. 15 émiotevcev A:
dtéomrevoev libri | dujcovow A: décovow libri. 16 @nBatos B Pal. 17 avrTe
BO Pals. 1g Koixyjs Pal. 20 ovvO7 kai B Pal.
740
FIRST LETTER TO AMMAEUS. 75
XI
To show that all the speeches I have enumerated were
delivered by Demosthenes before the publication of the
Rhetoric of Aristotle, I will bring forward Aristotle himself
as witness. In the course of the passage in the Second Book
of the Rhetoric, in which he defines the topics from which
enthymemes are derived, he deals with that of time and
illustrates it by examples. I will quote his actual words.
‘Another topic has reference to time. For example, Iphicrates
in defending himself against Harmodius said, “If before ren-
dering these services I had claimed the statue in the event of
rendering them, you would have granted it. Will you refuse
it, when they are already rendered? Nay, do not promise a
reward in anticipation, and withhold it after realisation.” Again,
with the object of inducing the Thebans to allow Philip a
passage through their territory into Attica, it might be urged
that if he had made the demand before he helped them
against the Phocians they would have promised, and it
would therefore be a scandal if they refused the request now
because he then trusted to their honour and forbore to
extort pledges’.
Now the date at which Philip called upon the Thebans to
grant him a passage into Attica reminding them of his help
in the Phocian War, is clear from known facts. The cir-
cumstances were as follows. In the archonship of Themi-
stocles, after the capture of Olynthus, Philip made a treaty
of friendship and alliance with the Athenians. This covenant
lasted seven years, till the year of Nicomachus. It was
brought to an end under the archon Theophrastus, who
succeeded Nicomachus. The Athenians accused Philip of
beginning the war, while Philip blamed the Athenians. The
1 Aristot. Rhet. 11. 23, 6.
76 DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSUS.
> , > a > X\ / 4 > ~
QluTLas Su ; 2S €lS TOV 7 ONELOV KAaTEOTNO AV aouKketo Oar 741
hé > / \ N / > G3) \ > ,
eyovTes auorepor, Kal TOV ypovoy ev @ THY ElpyYnV
eluoay, axpiBas dSyndrot Pidyopos ev TH EKTN THS “ATOid0s
4 / ) > > ~ \ > / /
BvB\o. Ojnow 8 e& aitns Ta avayKaitata: ‘ @cd-
¢ / STEN , / ‘\ \ an
5 fpaotos Adavevs: émt Tovtov Pihimmos TO pev TpwToV
avathevoas IlepivOw tpooéBadrev, atotuyav 8 evtevbev
Bulavrvoy e7ohpkKer Kal pNYaVHpaTa TpooHnyev. EmeiTa
deEehO@v, 67a Tois “APnvatous 6 Pihumrmos evexdder dia
lol > “A la 4 \ co > / cue \
THS ETLOTOANHS, TAVTA Tad Kata he emuiTiOnaw: ‘6 dé
A b) / a > aA \ /
10 Oypwos akovaas THS emLATOANS Kal Anpoobévous Tapaka-
h€cavtos avTov Tpos TOY TOELOV Kal <TAa> UHhiopaTa
ypawavtos e€xeipotovnae THY ev oTHynv Kabedety THY
TEPL TNS Tpos Pihiamor eipyvys kat Tvppayxtas otabeioar,
aA \ la \ \ » > A \ lal , »
vas d€ mAynpovv Kal Ta adda evepyety TA TOU TOEMOV.
A , ‘\ / y 7
15 Tatra ypaias kata Peoppactov apyovta | yeyovevat,
T@® eT EKELVOY EvLAUT@ TA TpayOevTAa peTa THY VOW
THS Elpyvys et Avowayioov apyovTos dueE€pyeTar. Onow
d€ Kal TovTwy avTa Ta avayKaldTata: ‘ Avowpayidns
“Ayapvevs: el ToVTOV TA peV Epya TA TEpL TOVS VEwoot-
‘\ \ (A > / \ XN P
20KoUS Kal THY oKEvoOnKny aveBadovTo dia TOV mOdEMOV
\ ‘\ / \ \ 4 > , , >
Tov pos Pidimmov: Ta d€ ypHpata ebyndhicavtTo mavT
> \ , , ,
eivat otpatiwtixa Anpoobévovs ypaisavtos. PidtaTov
d€ KatahaBovtos *EXarevay Kat Kurivov kat mpéoBes
TEmpavtos els OnBas OeTTaov Atriavwy Aitwhov Aodo-
= an > , \ \ ‘\ > \ /
25Tov Phwroav, “APnvaiwy d5€ Kata TOV avToY yxpovor
4 5 / A \ 4 4
mpéer Bes atootedavtwy Tovs wept Anuoobévy, tovTous
cuppaye endicavto. davepod 5) yeyovotos Tov
xpovov, Ka? ov elaondOov «is OnBas ot Te “AOnvaiwv
/ c \ , \ e ‘\ , 9
mpéa Bes ot rept Anpoobévy Kat ot Tapa Pudtamov, OTL
4 PBuvB\w B Pal: BiBtw MOs. 5 adaeds libri: corr. Herwerdenus |
Tovrous Pal. Ou aauTa oe. Io émusro\ns MBO: om. Pals. WEN “Gel
add. Weilius. 18 rovrwy aira) Reiskius, adra@y ra libri. 24 verba
kal avrTov Kat post O7Bas intercidisse putat Us. 27. éWndicaro libri: corr.
Reiskius.
742
FIRST LETTER TO AMMAEUS. 77
reasons for which the two parties, each of which claimed
to be in the right, engaged in the war, and the date at
which they violated the peace, are precisely indicated by
Philochorus in the Sixth Book of his A/z¢hzs, from which |
will quote simply the essential particulars: ‘Theophrastus of
the deme Halae. Under his archonship Philip, first of all,
attacked Perinthus by sea. Failing here, he next laid siege
to Byzantium and brought engines of war against it’ After-
wards he recounts the allegations which Philip made against
the Athenians in his letter, and adds these words which |
quote as they stand: ‘ The people, after listening to the letter
and to the exhortations of Demosthenes, who advocated war
and framed the necessary resolutions, passed a resolution to
demolish the column erected to record the treaty of peace
and alliance with Philip, and further to man a fleet and in
every other way to prosecute the war energetically*.’
After assigning these events to the archonship of Theo-
phrastus, he describes the occurrences of the succeeding year
when Lysimachides was archon after the violation of the
peace. Here again I will quote only the most essential
particulars. ‘Lysimachides of the deme Acharnae. Under
this archon the Athenians, in consequence of the war
against Philip, deferred the construction of the docks and the
arsenal. They resolved, on the motion of Demosthenes, that
all the funds should be devoted to the campaign. But Philip
seized Elateia and Cytinium, and sent to Thebes representa-
tives of the Thessalians, Aenianians, Aetolians, Dolopians,
Phthiotians. An embassy, headed by Demosthenes, was at
the same time despatched by the Athenians, with whom the
Thebans resolved to enter into alliance®’’ Now it is clear
that it was under the archonship of Lysimachides, when both
sides had already made preparations for war, that the Athenian
envoys headed by Demosthenes and those sent by Philip
1 Philochorus fragm. 135 (Fragm. Hist. Graec. 1. p. 406).
2 id. 70. 3 id. 7.
5
iio)
15
25
78 DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSTS.
»
kata Avoipayidnv adpxovta mimrer, Taperkevacpevov
¥ \ NS XN / 3 / > ‘\ c /
On TA TPOS TOV TOEMOV appoTépwrv, avTds 6 Anpodbévyns
Tojoe pavepov €v TH TEpL TOV aTEpavov hoyw, Tives
Onow
> € . A rn > , > ,
HoaV a Tapa TaV TpETBELav appoTepwv a€iocrets:
\ bad > ~ ‘\ ”~ > / 7, ‘\ LA
dé €€ avtns haBwv THs exeivou héEews TA GUPTELVOVTA
Tpos TO mpaypa: ‘OvTws diableis Pidutmos Tas modes
\ > 4 XN V2 \ 4 b) \ lm
mpos add\ydas Oia TovTwY, Kal TovToLs emapHeis Tots
7 \ lal a
Unplopact Kal Tals aTOKpioTETW KEV Exov THY SvvapL
\ \ > , , c 2Q> xX ” /
kat Tv “Eddtevay katéhaBev, ws odd av el TL yevorTo,
¥ , c a Ay \ an , ) > \
ETL OUMTVEVTAVTWOY NuaV av Kat Tov OyBatwv. adda
\ \ ca
pny Ta TOTE oupBavta dieEehOadv, SieEehOwv dé Tovs
ec , ¢ > c la) / 5 XN aA > , \ G
pylevtas vd Eéavtov oyous emi THS exKAHoLas, Kal ws
\ > la
mperBevTns v7 “AOnvatav eis OnBas eréudOy, Tavra
Kata NEE emitiOnow: ‘ws & aduxopela eis Tas OyBas,
\ lal an ¥
KaTehapBavoyev Pidtrmov Kat OeTTaAr@v Kal Tov addr\wv
\
TULMAYwWY TapovTas mpéeac Bes, Kal TOUS pLeVY mETEpoUS
/ > / \ ) > , “A by yy > =)
dtrtovs ev PdBw, Tors 8 exeivov Opacets. emer éemt-
aTol\nv Twa Kehevoas avayvwcOnvar TavT emitiOnow:
‘émevoy Tolvuy €roLnoavTo THY eKkhyolav, TpooHyov
Exeltvous <TpoTépous> ua TO THY TOV TUpPpayov TAEW
€xelvous EXELV. Kal TapLovTEs eOnuNyopovy Tohda pev
Pitimov eyKopidlovtes, Ttoh\ha 8 vuw €yKadovrtes,
i > 4 , b) / > , i, >
rave boca TemoTE evavTia eTpa Eate OnBatovs avapi-
, \ > > , 7 @ \ >
pvnokovtes. TO 6 ovv Kepddaov, Héiovy, wv pev ev
> , e \N , , > N > an a
TweTOvOecay v0 PitimTov yapw avTovs amododvat, ov
d ud vpaov Aotknvrar diknv aBetv, d7oTépws BovdrovTar,
x ia -) \ > > if “a x 4 > \
H Sudvtas avTovs ed was 7 avvenBaddovtas eis THY
> 4 ? > X\ ‘\ / \ »” X
Arrukny. el dy Kata Avowayidny per apXovTa TOV
‘\ fe , A la 5 A c ‘\
peta Ocddpactov hetvpevyns On THS eipyHvys ot mapa
4 ai wepi libri: corr. Herwerdenus. 6 6 Pidurmos s ex Demosth.
10 ouumvevodvTwy] Elmsleius, cupmrvevodyrwy libri: eadem lectio in codd. Dem.
exstat | dy nuav Dem. Ir alterum dceEéeAOdv MB? Pal. 14 6] yap Dem.
20 mporépouvs e Demosth. addidi, om. libri. 21 mapedvres O mapedOdvTes Dem.
22 moda 6’ buav Karnyopodvres Dem. 23 OnBatos Dem. 26 HOlknvrac M
noiknvro Dem. =! | émérepos Pal. 27 dévras Pal ut Dem. 2 al.
743
744
FIRST LETTER TO AMMAEUS. 79
entered Thebes. Demosthenes himself, in his speech Ox the
Crown, will show clearly what were the claims preferred by
the two embassies. I will quote from the actual text the
parts which bear upon the question. ‘By these means Philip
sowed discord among the Greek states; and encouraged by
the decrees and answers already mentioned, he came with his
army and seized Elateia. He assumed that, whatever hap-
pened, we and the Thebans could never again act in concert".’
Moreover, after describing the events which then ensued
and describing also the speeches delivered by himself before
the public assembly and the circumstances under which he
was sent by the Athenians as an ambassador to Thebes, he
adds (to quote his actual words): ‘When we arrived at
Thebes, we found representatives of Philip, of the Thessalians
and of the rest of the allies, already there and our friends
in a state of alarm, his full of confidence? Then, after
requesting a certain letter to be read, he continues : ‘So when
the Thebans had convened the assembly, they introduced
Philip’s representatives first, because they had the status of
allies. And these came forward and addressed the people,
paying many compliments to Philip, and laying to your charge
many faults, recalling every instance in which you at any time
opposed the Thebans. In brief, they urged them to show their
gratitude for the favours conferred upon them by Philip, and to
seek satisfaction for the wrongs done them by you. They might
avenge themselves in either of the two following ways as they
pleased; they might allow Philip’s troops to pass through
their territory to attack you, or they might join him in
invading Attica®’ Now if it was in the archonship of
Lysimachides, the successor of Theophrastus, and after the
1 Dem. de Cor. 168, p. 254. 2 Dem. de Cor. 211, p. 298.
3 Dem. de Cor. 213, p- 299.
Io
15
20
25
80 DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSUS.
Putr7ov rpea Bes eis OnBas arectahyoay Tapakadovv-
b) ‘\ / \ “A ~) NS > ,
Tes avTovs paliaoTta pev cuveroParew eis THY “ATTLKHD,
.) \ , 4 “A 4 “a 4 Lal
el O€ py, Slodov TO OiilaTH Tapacye penvNnpevous TOV
EVEPYETLOV AVTOV TOV TEpt TOV PaKiKoV TOELOV, TAUTYS
\ / a / > , c > 4
dé peuvyta. THs mpeoBelas “Apiototédyns, ws ddty
mpotepov emédaka Tas exeivov héEers Tmapacydpevos,
> / 4 > , 4 4
avaupiroyos Sdytovbey amodédekTar TeKkpyptous, OTe
mavtes ol Annoobévous ayaves | ot mpd THS Avotpwayidou
apyns €v ekk\noiats Te Kal SukaoTnplois yevdopmevor
TPOTEPOVTL TOV "A puotoTé ous TEXVOV.
x
Ch / / 4 \ nm ,
Erépav tpoocbyow paptupiay rapa Tov diioaddov
, M2 » a y, / 7 \ X
haBav, €€ ys ert paddov EoTar davepov, OTL pmeTa TOV
ToheLov TOV GUEBavTa Tots AOynvatois pos Pidummov at
pnTopikat ouveTaylynoay vr avtov Téxvat, AnpooGevous
akpalovTos Non KaTa THY TONTELAY Kal TaVTAS ELpHKOTOS
Tovs Te Onunyopikovs Kal Tovs SiKaviKovs oyous, av
> / / ] , ‘\ ‘ \ id
dhiyw mpotepov euvynaOnv. SdueEv@v yap Tovs Tdmovs
“~ > /, c / \ XN > an ye
tov evOupnpatov 6 diidcodos Kat TOV EK THS atTias
TiOnor tapéEopar dé THY Exetvou heEw: ‘addos Tapa
@ a 9 4
TO avaiTiov <ws aiTiov>, olov T® apa 7 peTa TOUTO
yeyovévalt. TO yap peTa TovTO <ws dia TovVTO> hapBa-
la c
vovol, Kal pahioTa ev Tats ToduTElats: ws 6 Anpadys
tTHhv Anpoobévous Toditelav TaVvTw@Y TOV KaKOV aiTiav:
5 > Lal SN / c / ’ / 5S ce
peT exetvo yap ovveBn 6 TOdELOos.' | Tolovs ody 6 Anpo-
la A > /
aobéns Kateckevacev ayavas Tats “Apiotortehetous TEXVALS
2 ovveoPdaddev libri: corr. Herwerdenus. 7 Onmovbev] dv arobay P
av MBO dp’ Weilius. 10 mpotepovor] Herwerdenus, mpérepov s mpérepot libri.
11 mapa M zrepi BO Pal. 14 pyropikai kai Pal. 20 dv dvairvor libri:
corr. s | ws alziov om. libri: ex A supplevit s. 21 ws dia Todro supplevit
sex A. 22 ws] olov ws A. 24 per éxelynvy As | cuvéBn 6
méXenos supplevit s ex A: lacunam indicant libri | ody] Reiskius, y’ of» M yobv
BO Pal s.
745
746
FIRST LETTER TO AMMAEUS. 81
peace had been dissolved, that the ambassadors of Philip were
sent to the Thebans urging them to join in invading Attica, or
(failing that) to allow Philip the right of passage in recognition
of his services in the Phocian War, and if further this is the
embassy mentioned by Aristotle, as I showed a little earlier
when I cited his own words, then surely it is demonstrated by
irrefutable proofs that all the speeches of Demosthenes which
were addressed to public assemblies and to law-courts before
the archonship of Lysimachides are earlier than the Retoric
of Aristotle.
>.@ II
I will add another piece of evidence furnished by the
philosopher, from which it will appear still more plainly that
his Rhetoric was composed after the war which broke out
between Philip and the Athenians, when Demosthenes had
reached his prime as a statesman and had delivered all the
deliberative and the forensic speeches which I mentioned a
little while ago. Among the topics of enthymemes enumerated
by him, the philosopher includes that of cause. I will adduce
his own words. ‘Another topic consists in regarding what is
no cause as a cause, because (it may be) one thing happens
with or after another. Post hoc is assumed to be identical
with propter hoc; and this is specially the case in the world of
politics. _Demades, for example, considered the adminis-
tration of Demosthenes to have caused all the troubles of the
state, for it was thereafter that the war occurred’.’ Now what
can the speeches have been which Demosthenes composed
under the guidance of the Rhetoric of Aristotle if (as I have
1 Aristot. Ahet. ii. 24, 8.
10
15
20
25
82 DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSUS.
c A / > , ¢c / / > a
ddnyots ypnodpevos, Et TavTES ol Snpdcrot hoyor, dv ods
eTauweirat Te Kal Oavualerar, Tpo TOV TOhEMOV yeyovacw,
@s TpoTepov eTéderEa, TAHV EvOS TOV TEPL TOV aTEpavou;
ovT0s yap jLovos els SukacTHpiov eioe\nrAvOEY peta TOV
, pet) t) “~ »¥ > / SS > ~
TOhEpLov Ee “ApiatopavTos apxovTos <dyddw> pev eviavT@
‘ \ > r 4 / 4 \ \ \ 4
peTa THV Ev Xatpwvela paynv, ETH dé peTa THY PidimTOV
TeheuTyV, Kal” Ov ypovov ’Ad€Eavdpos THY ev “ApBy ous
evika pLaynv.
Et d€ tis épet Tav mpos amavta didoverkovyTwr;
9 a ¥ »¥ \ / io) > U4
OTL TOUTOY Laws eypae TOY Oyor Tats “ApitoToTédous
EVTETEVX WS TEXVALS, TOV KPATLOTOV ATAaVTMV <T@V> hdoywr,
TOAAA TPOS aUTOV EiTELY EXwV, Wa [1 MAaKPOTEPOS TOU
dé€ovtos 6 Adyos yeévnTat prot, Kal TovTOV emidetEew Ur-
LO\YVoUpal TOV ayava mpo TaV “ApiaToTéhous TEYVaV
ETLTETENET LEVOV AVT@ xpyoapmevos TH hriocodw papTupt.
‘\ ‘\ / 3 / \ > lan \ »”
mpobeis yap Tomov evOvpnpatav TOV €k TOV Tpos addyda,
Tavta Kata | hé€wv ypader ‘addos ex THY pds addyAa’
n~ xX nw
el yap Oarépw <imdpye TO Kadas 7) dikalws Tonoat,
Oatépw> 70 TeTovlevar, Kal El KENEVT AL, KAL TO TeETOLN-
/ e ec c 4 c 4 > ~ > ¢ A
Kévat’ olov @s 6 TeA@VNS 6 Atopédav: Ei yap pnd vpty
aioxypov TO Tadev, ovde Huty TO avetrOar. Kal Ee TO
, \ A ay , c , A ,
TeToVvote <TO> KANOS 7) OiKalws UTAPXEl, TO TETPAyYLEVH
, a “~ al
vrapfer Kal TH ToLyoavTL 7 ToLovyTL. EaTL O€ TOUTO
/ > ‘\ > / y+ V4 X
Taparoyicacbar: ov yap «i dukaiws emabev, dpa Kat
dukaiws v0 TovTov wémovOe. 610 Set oKomew yxwpls, Et
» ¢e \ lal Nuwe , a cy) A
a€é.os O Trabov mabe KQaLO TOLNO AS TOLNO AL, €lLTa xpno bar
5 o6yd6w add. Bentleius. 6 &krw] Bentleius, 6x7 libri. Il évTe-
Tevxas M évrerux7Kws s. Tav Néoywv] Us, Néyor libri. 18, 19 vmdpxee
scat @arépw s ex A: om. libri. 20 0 dtouédwy libri: Atouédwy mepl rev
Ttesov A Par. 22 70 kadws] A, xkad@s libri. 7] A, xai libri.
22 TW Wempayyevy...... 23 moovvTt] kal 7H TeicavTe 7 momjoav7e A Par.
23 6é rov7o libri cum A Par. 24 ov yap...mémovde] el yap dixaiws érabév 71,
dixalws mémovOev, GN iows odx bd cot A. dua] Us, ay libri. 25 wso
; “3 : ine riage oe iol ee ; an
povov asia TOLNTAS TWATHP, €L VTO TOV VLOU TOU EAUTOU THV ETL GavaTw amTrayeTat
scholion mg M rubro, in textum receperunt Pal s: om. BO.
747
FIRST LETTER TO AMMAEUS. 83
previously shown) all the public addresses on which his repu-
tation and fame depend preceded the war? The sole exception
is the speech Ox the Crown. This, and this alone, came be-
fore a tribunal after the war, in the archonship of Aristophon,
eight years after the battle of Chaeroneia, six years after the
death of Philip, at the time of Alexander’s victory at Arbela.
If some captious critic suggests that possibly Demos-
thenes did not write this, the best of all his speeches,
before he had perused the Retoric of Aristotle, I have much
to say in reply to him. But in order that my discussion
may not run to undue length, I engage to show, on the
evidence of Aristotle himself, that this oration also was
completed before the publication of the Rhetoric. In dealing
with the topic of enthymemes derived from relative terms, he
writes the exact words which follow. ‘Another topic is that
derived from relative terms. If the terms “ honorably” or
“justly” can be applied to the man who acts, they can also be
applied to the man who is affected by the action ; if they can
be applied to a command, they can also be applied to its
execution. In this spirit the tax-gatherer Diomedon ex-
claimed: “If it is no discredit to you to sell the taxes, it is no
discredit to us to buy them.” And if the terms “honorably”
or “justly” can be applied to a man affected by an action,
they can also be applied to the action itself and to the man
who has done or is doing it. This is a case of unsound
argument. For if a man has been justly treated, it does
not necessarily follow that he has been justly treated by a
particular agent. Accordingly we must consider separately
whether the treatment is right and whether the action
is right, and then deal with the case in whichever of the
6—2
84 DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSUS.
c / xX c / Siat, ‘\ “A ‘\ lal
émoTepws av appoTTn. eviote yap | Stadwvet 7d ToLovTov, 748
ooTmep ev TO “ANKpalove TO OeodéxTov ... Kal otov 7
XN 4 / \ wn 5 / ~ , 3
mept Anpoobevous Sikn Kat Tov atroKtevavTav Nukavopa.
2) = \ a
tis ovv eat 7 Anpoobévous Sikn | Kal TOY aTrOoKTELWAVT@V
Nixa | wept as 6 ditdcodos yeypader, ev 7H TC )
Nixavopa | rept 7s oaodos yeyp , €V 1) TO KUpLO-
tTatov THs audio BynTHoEws KEehahavoy HY EK TOU TPOS
wn
a\\ynda Torov; 7H Tpos Aioyivny vrEep Krynoipavtos Tov
/ , ~~ \ ~~ / /
Tmapacyovtos Anpoobéve 70 TEpt TOV aTEdavov WHdropa
Kal THY TOV Tapavopmav devyovTos ypadyny: ev TavTH yap
10 TO CynTovpevov HV ov TO KOLVOV, El TLL@Y Kal oTEdavwY
» 5 , 5) \ > A O07 , \
a€.os Hv Anpooberns éridovs €k TOV idtwy KTHMAT@V THY
5 ‘\ , 4 > > ) Sees / c 4
eis TA Telyn Satavynv, aN’ e& Kal? dv ypovov vrevOuvos
nv, KwvoVTOS TOV Vomov TOS viEvHIVOUVs aTEpavod”.
‘\ XN 5 lal \ »” an 3 » »~ Y n~
TO yap €K Tov mpos addAnha TOUT ETL, EL WOTEP TH
l
, \ an Y \ los ¢ , \ ~ ‘\
15 Ow TO Sovvat, | OVTMS Kal TO VTTEvOVw TO haPeElY TOV 749
aotépavov e&nv. eyw bev ovv TavTNS olopar THS SiKNs
nw \ > / > / > ~ yy \ nw
pewvnoOar Tov “ApuotoTédyn. el O€ Tus Epet, OTL TEpL THS
aA , a 3333) > / + b) /
Tov dépwv, nv é€7 ~AvtiKh€ovs apxovtos amehoynoato
\ ‘\ > U4 / Los / »” /
TepiTny AheEdvdpov TEAEVTHV, TOAAG VEwTEpas ETL TOLNTEL
20 Tas Apiototéhous Téxvas Tov Anpoobevous ayovar.
) \ \ 4 \ > c (342 NN ~ /
AdXa yap OTL Mev OVX O pyTwpP Tapa Tov diio~odov
a
Tas Téxyvas tapéhaBev as eis Tovs Pavpactovs €xetvous
, , > \ > , \ ,
KaTteokevace hoyous, akXa TovvavTiov Ta AnpooOevous
X \ cr »” ec , ¥ 4 >
Kal Ta Tov a\wv pynTopev epya Tapabeuevos “ApioTo-
, , ¥ \ , e a > A
25 TéAns TavTas eypaile Tas TEYVaS, LKavas arodedety Oat
vopila.
1 éviote] s ex A, éviows libri | Tovobrov] Tovodrov Kai ovdév Kwrier A.
2 exemplaex Alem. Theod. prompta omisit Dionysius | ofov om. in A Par, non t.
Aan K been: 5 Nuxdvopa seclusit Weilius. 7 rémov; 7] Us, rémov 7 % libri.
It €m.dovs] Herwerdenus, €md.dovs libri. 23 Katecxevacar MO. 24 TO
om. B. 26 = Atovuctov dupaiw 7@ gir|tatw. mdelota xalpev: | TéNos subscribit
M eandem subscriptionem quarto addito versu Tov dvovuciov: praestat O nihil tale
habent BPs.
FIRST LETTER TO AMMAEUS. 85
two ways seems the more suitable. For sometimes there is
a distinction to be made, as in the Adcmaeon of Theodectes
pacaant Another example is the trial in which Demosthenes
and those who slew Nicanor were involved! What, then,
is the trial of Demosthenes [and of those who slew Nicanor]
to which Aristotle here refers. in which the most im-
portant point in the controversy was derived from the
topic of relative terms? It is that in which he defended,
against Aeschines, Ctesiphon, who had proposed to crown
Demosthenes and was on his trial as the author of an
unconstitutional measure. For in this case the point at issue
was not the general question whether Demosthenes deserved
honours and crowns as having provided for the construction
of the fortifications out of his own means, but whether he
deserved these things while he was an official liable to
account, and notwithstanding the fact that it was illegal to
crown men who were so liable. Here we have the topic
of relative terms: the point is whether a man liable to
account had the same right to receive, as the people to
give, the crown. It is my opinion, therefore, that Aristotle
refers to this trial. If, however, it is maintained that the
reference is to the accusation of corruption against which
Demosthenes pleaded in the archonship of Anticles, about
the time of the death of Alexander, this will prove that the
Rhetoric of Aristotle is later than the speeches of Demos-
thenes by a still greater interval.
But enough. The orator did not derive from the philoso-
pher the rules of rhetoric which he embodied in his celebrated
speeches. On the contrary, Aristotle wrote his A/etoric with
the works of Demosthenes, and the other orators, within his
reach. I have, I think, proved my point.
1 Aristot. het. ii. 23, 3.
Peeomvoll HALICARNASSENSIS
Baek A AD CN. POMPEIUM
GEMINUM.
AIONY2IO02 FNAIQO! TIOMAHIQI Ze®
XAIPEIN
I
> 4 \ ~ “~ > 4
Emuctohnv Twa Tapa cov Kopicbetcav edeEdpnv
\ , , G2 ,
evTaldevTOV TE Kal TAVU LOL KEXapLOpPEVHY, EV H ypadets,
\ lol
5 OTL Tas GuVTakEls TAS Eas ETLYOPHyOUYTOS ToL ZHvwvos
.
la “A \
Tov Kowov dirov diamopevdpmevos Kal tavu diatibeuevos
5 , 3 > A ‘\ NN »~ Ie CaN nN DP,
olKelws €v avTais Ta pev adda Oavpalers, Evi dE peper
/ nn lal nr
dvoVxepaivers TOV Ev adTals KaTaKeyopiopevwr, TH IT\a-
, 7 \ i rol ,
TwVvOS KaTHyopia. OTL pev ovvy oEBacTiKos SidKELoaL
XN \ y A an 9 \ XN c A A
10 Tpos Tov avdpa, 6pOas mrovets: OTL | SE TEPL NU@Y TavTA 751
¢€ / ~) b) lal > 4 » > te
viethndas, ovK Opbdas. el yap Tis ahdos exmhyTTETAL
A lal , > A ~ \
tats [Natwyikats epynvetas, eb tof vov, Kayo TovTwY
a Y Y \ A
eis cit. 0 O€ mtémovOa pods amavrTas, OTOL Tas avToV
> 4, > \ \ , > , 3 “A
eTWWOLas Els THY KOLVHVY hépovaow wdédecay ETavopHourTES
lal \ lal
15 <TOUS> nuav Blous TE Kal hOyous, EpW ToL, Kal TELTW YE,
\ /, , \ >] \ ¢ -~ b) \ 4
vy Ata, muoTevew Kawov ovdev EvpEtY OVSE Tapado€ov
> a lal cal
ovd 0 py TacW Spotws SoKet.
Sn > , a Y \ ¥ ,
Ey@ ovv vopilw dev, oray pev etaivov mpoehynTat
/ , »~ /
ypadhew Tis TPAyLaTOS ELTE THPATOS OTOLOV YE ToS, TAS
> \ > la \ > > U4 de / nw
20 GPETAS AUTOUV Kal OV TaTLXTHmaTA, EL TILA TPOTETTL, [TO
1 “Emorody | Acovictos yvaia moumnicn xaipew M et omisso értsrody} Pal s
Atovictos yvalw troumniw xalpew B. 15 7Tovs inseruit Us. 20 TaTUXHMaTa]
Herwerdenus, 7a tuxjyatra M ra aruxnuara Pal B s. el te libri: corr.
Reiskius | 20 7@......... P- 90, 1 dety: haec verba non sine causa suspectant edd.
DIONYSIUS TO GNAEUS POMPEIUS
WITH GREETINGS:
I have received with great pleasure the scholarly letter
you sent me. Zeno, our common friend, has supplied you
(so you write) with a copy of my treatises. In going
through them and making them your own, on the whole
you admire them, but are dissatisfied, you say, with one
portion of their contents, namely, the criticism of Plato.
Now you are right in the reverence you feel for that writer,
but not right in your view of my position. You may rest
assured that I must be numbered among those who have
fallen most completely under the spell of Plato’s gifts of
expression. But I will explain to you my attitude towards
all thinkers who are public benefactors and desire to reform
our lives and words. And what is more, I mean to convince
you that I have discovered nothing new, or startling, or
contrary to the universally accepted view.
Now I think it is an author’s duty, when he elects to
write a panegyric of some achievement or some person, to
give prominence to merits rather than to any deficiencies.
go DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSUS.
Tpdyphare} TO Tomare Sev | tpopepew: dtav dé BovnOA
Suayvavat, Ti 70 Kpatictov ev oTw Sy Tote Biw Kat Ti TO
Bé\r.oTov TV TO TavTO yévos Epywv, THY aKp_BerTaTHY
I¢/ / \ be ‘ 4 “A /
efeTaow TpooP€epey Kal pNndEV TapadelTELY TOV TPOTOV-
> “~ ¥ la ¥ > A“ c ‘\ > /
5Twy avTos elTe Kakav ete ayalav: | n yap adnOeva 752
oUTwS EUploKETal pahLoTa, AS OVdEY YPHLA TLLLWTEpOV.
TovTo 67 mpobeuevos exetvo héyw: ei pev €oTL mol KaTa
TIAdtwvos dyos Tus KaTadpopny Tepieywv Tod avdpods
Y = Ai Ay Mee. > va c A \ »
woTep Zotho To pytopr, aveBety Opohoy@: Kal el ye
‘\ > / > lo) , / N
10 Bovdnbets €yK@piov avTov ypadew oyous Twas ovy-
KaTaTeKw Tots eraivous, ddikew yur Kal wapexBaivew
tovs KabeaTa@tas nly Eri TOs Eratvois Vopous: ov yap
o7t diaBodas olopar Setvy ypadew ev avdtots, add ovd
amohoylas. ei 6€ yapaxTnpas hoyou TpoEhopevos OKOTELV
15 KAL TOUS TPwWTEVOVTAS EV aUTOLS diioTdOdous TE Kat PHTOpas,
> / “ \ > c / > 4 XN A
e€eralew Tpets pev €€ atravTwv e€ehe€apyv Tovs SoKovvTas
elvat Napmpotatous, “looxpatnv te Kat IlAdtwva Kal
, > \ , SN , ,
Anpoobeérvn, €k S€ TovTwy av’Tav Tadwy TpoeKpwa Anpo-
4 b] \ ” » i” A > , > “A
oben, ovdev wpny ovte IIhatava ovre Iooxpatnv GOLKELD.
20 | Ny Ata, dys, AAN ovdK Ede we TA TIAaTwVOS apwapTy-
5 4 / > “~ / ¥
para e€ehéeyyewv, Bovdopevov erawew Anpocbern. emreita
Lal »~ \ > / tA c /, A
TOS av ot THY akpiBeotatnvy Bacavov oO hoyos ehaBev,
lal >
El fy TOvS apiaTtovs hdyous TaV “IaoKpaTous TE Kal
I\dtwvos tots Kpatiotou <tav> Anuoobévous avturape-
25Onka Kat ka? 6 pépos HTTOVS ot TOVTwWY héoyou Elol TOV
> 7 ‘\ {/ b) / J 4 > 7 A
exeivou peTa Tans anbeias erederEa, ovy amTavTa Tots
avopacow €exeivous nuaptncbar héywv (wavias yap TodTo
5 > > > 7 5 / “~ > \ ~ >
ye), GAN’ odd’ arravta érions Katwpfacbar; ei dé ToT
> 5 / > / \ 4 / \ > lal
ovk €rolour, emnvouv Oé Anuoobévy macaas dieE@v avTod
30 TAS apeTds, ws pev ayallds 6 pyTwp, emELoa TavTws av
TOUS avayvaropevous: ws O€ Kal KpaTLOTOS TaVTwWY TOV
4 tmporpépew] Us, mpopépery libri. to ©6wWéyous] Holwellus, Adyous libri.
II docKely...... 12 Tots éraivoss MB: om. Pal s. 20 ons] Us, pyoty libri.
24 T@v add. Herwerden.
as
Pe)
LETTER TO POMPEILUS. gl
But when he wishes to determine what is most excellent in
some walk of life and what is the best among a number
of deeds of the same class, he ought to apply the most
rigorous investigation and to take account of every quality
whether good or bad. For this is the surest way of discover-
ing truth, than which there is no more precious boon. So
much premised, I make a further declaration. If there is
any writing of mine which, like the work of Zoilus the
rhetorician, contains an attack upon Plato, I plead guilty
of impiety. And if when my design is to write a eulogy
of him I interweave some fault-finding with my praises,
I admit that I am in the wrong and am transgressing the
laws by which eulogies are governed among us. For
in my opinion they should not contain even vindications,
much less detractions. On the other hand, when after under-
taking to examine varieties of style, together with their
foremost representatives among philosophers and _ orators,
I chose from the entire number three who are generally held
to be the most brilliant—Isocrates and Plato and Demo-
sthenes—and among these again I gave the preference to
Demosthenes, I thought I did no wrong either to Plato or to
Isocrates.
That may be, you say, but you should not have exposed
tlie faults of Plato, in your desire to extol Demosthenes.
How then would my argument have undergone the most
searching test had I not compared the best discourses of
Isocrates and Plato with the finest of Demosthenes, and thus
shown with the utmost candour in what respect their discourses
are inferior to his, not maintaining that those two writers were
always at fault (for that would be sheer lunacy), but not
maintaining, either, that they were always and uniformly
successful? If I had avoided this course, and had simply
eulogised Demosthenes and detailed all his excellences,
I should certainly have convinced my readers of the orator’s
worth ; but unless I had compared him with the best of his
mn
{0
25
92 DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSUS.
TpwTEevedvTav Tept NOyous, OUK aV ETELTA py TapaTLbets
> ~—N \ > / \ \ “ > c \
avT@ Tovs aploTouvs: ToANa yap ToV Kal” avTa datvo-
pevov Kahov Kat Oavpactav érépors avtimapatefevta
, > , A 4? > / 4 / \
KpeitToow €daTTw THs dSoEns ehavy. ovTw | ye ToL Kat
\Kpvaos ETEepw ypvTe@ TapaTebels KpeEitTwv ElTE Kal YELpwV
EUPLOKETAL Kal TAY GAO YELPOVPYNMA, KAL OTwY evapyEeLa
TO TEOS.
Et 6€ ayapiotov wrohnwWerai Tis Ev Tots ToALTLKOLS
hoyous THY Ek THS TvyKploews eE€TacTw Kal Ka’ éavToV
EKATTOV a€iwoeL TKOTEW, OVOEY KWAVTEL TO AVTO TOUTO
\ > \ “~ A “A XN 4 / > 4,
Kal emt TOV AX\AwY Trove, Kal HATE Tolnow avTe€eTalew
e / / 10? ¢ \ yf E ¢ / LE
eTepa Tojoes pHO ioropikny ovvTakw EeTéepa ovvTager
pnte TouTelay ToXdITELa PHATE VOMOY VOL, LY TTPATHYOV
oTpaTnye, yn Bacret Baciréa, py Biw Biov, pn ddoypare
ddypa: TovTo 8 ovK av Tis TVYKXwpPHTELE VOvV ExXaD.
el d€ Set Kal Tas EK TOV papTYpLoOV TapacyécOaL coL
/ > @ a / , : , 9
TlaTes, €€ av paddov cor yevyoeTar Katadbaves, OTL
KpaTLaTos Eh€yxou TpOTOS 6 KATA TUYKPLOLW yryvomevos,
b) \ \ 4 > Lal , , 4
adeis Tos addous avT@ xpyaopar paptupe IIhatwve. PBov-
Ta a
Anfeis yap 6 avynp emideiEacar THY avToD Svvapuy HY
elyev €v ToLs TONITiKOLS hoyots, OVK HPKE| GOH Tats addaLS 755
“A b) ‘\ \ kd , “A / c /
ypadbats, ahda Kat” * ™ Kpatiotov TwY TOTE pNTOpwV
7 > NN > > / 4 / 3 \
ETEpov avTos ev TH Paidpw cuveTdEato Noyov epwriKdv
> \ c / \ > \ y / A > /
els THY UTOMeETW: Kal OVdE aypL TOVTOV TpoE\OaV E€rrav-
gato KaTahimwv El Tots avayvwromEevors THY Sityvacw,
OTOTEPOS EOTL KpElTTwV hoyos, GAA Kal TOV apmapTHMaTwY
nwato Tov Avovewr, Tas pev exTLKaS apTUpaV TH avdpl
apetds, Tov S€ Tpaypatikav emiiapBavopmevos. dmdTE
obv I\arwv 70 hoptukatatov Kat emayeotatov Tov epywv
5 lre] Us, re libri. 13 pyre vouov] Us, un vdpmor libri. 18 6 Pals:
om. MB | yeyvouevos MB: yuwdpevos Pal s. 22 hiatum quem Sadaeus sensit
sic fere explendum esse censet Usenerus a\\a kal < Avolov Néyov épwrixdv éxdedw-
KOTOS, TOU> Kpariatov | kparicrov MB kpariorov Pal s. 25 él] Us, év libri.
26 omdérepos Pal Bs: métepos M. 27 Avoeiwy M Pal B Avgiou s.
LETTER TO POMPEIUS. 93
rivals, I should not have proved that he holds the very first
place among all who have distinguished themselves in oratory.
For many things which in themselves are thought beautiful and
worthy of admiration appear to fall short of their reputation
when set side by side with other things that are better. Thus
gold when contrasted with other gold is found to be superior
or inferior, and this is true of all manufactured articles, and of
all objects designed to produce a brilliant effect.
But if in the province of civil oratory the comparative
method of inquiry be judged ungracious, and a demand
made for the examination of each writer individually, the
same restriction will inevitably be introduced everywhere.
Poetry will no longer be compared with poetry, nor his-
torical treatise with historical treatise, nor constitution
with constitution, nor law with law, general with general,
king with king, life with life, tenet with tenet. And yet
no reasonable man would acquiesce in this. But if you
need also the proofs which personal testimonies supply, to
render it more plain to you that the best mode of exami-
nation is the comparative, I will pass over all others and
appeal to Plato himself as my witness. Desiring to exhibit
his own proficiency in civil oratory, he was not satisfied with
the rest of his writings, but [in rivalry with] the foremost
orator of the time, himself composed in the Phaedrus another
speech with Love as its subject. Nor after advancing so far
did he pause and leave to his readers to decide which speech
was the better, but he actually assailed the faults of Lysias,
allowing that he had excellences of style, but attacking his
treatment of subject-matter. Since, therefore, Plato when
engaging in the most vulgar and most invidious of tasks, that
in
Io
15
20
04 DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSUS.
TpoehOMeEvos, AUTOV ETaWeELY KaTa THY S¥VapW TOV hoywr,
ovdev WETO TOLELY KaTHYOplas aLoY, El Tapa TOV apLOTOY
Lal / c / \ > , > / > P, /
T@V TOTE PpNTOpwY Tos LOlovs e€eTaLley HEiov oyous
eTioexvvpevos Avolav Te ev ots nuaptnkey Kal éavTov
ev ois KkaTap0oxe, Ti Pavpacroy erolovy éy@ Tots Anpo-
/ / , \ / \ x \
cfévovs Noyous avyKpwav Tos IIAdtwvos Kal et TL pr
Kah@s €v avtots exew | wpnv, emroyildpevos; €@ yap
\ » > a \ / > a A \
Tas ad\as avTov ypadas Tapadepe, ev ais Komwdet Tos
mpo €avtov, appevidny te Kat ‘Immiav Kat Upwrayopav
kat IIpdduxov kat Topytav cat H@dov Kai @eddwpor Kat
Opacvpayov Kat addous GvyVOUs, OVK amd TOV BEedtiaTOU
TAVTA TEpt avTav ypadav add’, et Bove, Kal ad idro-
, Ss / oy > a , , \ > \
Tylas’ nv yap, nv ev TH Udatwvos pice: ToANAS apeTas
€xovoyn TO diiotimov. ednrAwore SE TOUTO paiata dia THS
KOUaY [AOv- uy} [rs 4]
Y a aN
mpos Opunpov GydoTvmias, ov ex THs KaTacKevaloperns
¢ > > ‘a / > ue , ‘\ 7,
um avtov moutelas exBalher orehavecas Kal pipe
, ¢€ \ , > =~ bé > , did
xpioas, ws 8) TovTwy ait@ déov exBaddopevw, dv dv
n TE GAN Taldela Taca TapyHAOeEv eis TOV Blov Kat TEdeEv-
Toca <yn> hitocodia. ada Oopev ard tov Bedtiatou
du avtny Hv ahjbeaav ravta héyew | adnOy| Uddrova:
Tl ovV aTOTOV ETOLOYJLEV TOLS EKELVOU VOLOLS YPOPMEVOL Kal
avrimape€eralew avT@ Tovs THY eTaKwacavT@V oyous
Bovdopevor ;
4 > b) / > \ “a > \ if \
| “Ezrev?’ od povos odd€ mpatos eya haryoopar tept
/ > / / > > ~ A >
TIkdtwvos emyepyoas tue h€yew. ovd av Tis Exou KaT
avTo TovTO peuiacOat pe TO pépos, OTL TOV éemupavéatatov
lol / \ 4 xX» , wn 5 ~
Tov diiocddav Kat meioaw 7 SHdeKa yeveats esavTov
mpeaButepov e€eralew e7eBadounv ws OS dia TovTO
, ‘\ 4 \ \ e i \
dd&€ns Twos TevEdpevos. Todhoi yap evpeOjycovTar Tpd
E/LOU TOUTO TETOLNKOTES, OL [LEY KATA TOV EKELVOU YEVOMEVOL
13. ev] Kruegerus, pév libri. Ig 7 ante @irocodia addidit Reiskius.
20 adnO7 delevit Herwerdenus. 24 ovd€ wovos ode libri: corr. Herwerdenus.
28 inter éfera fev et éreBaddunv deest dimidia fere pars versus in M: hiatum non
indicant Pal B s.
756
757
ELEBTIER. TO. POMPELUS. 95
| of praising himself in respect of his oratorical power, thought
he was doing nothing blameworthy in claiming that his own
speeches should be examined side by side with those of the
best orator of the day, and in exhibiting the errors of Lysias
and his own merits, what is there so astonishing in my com-
parison of the speeches of Plato with those of Demosthenes and
my scrutiny of anything I found amiss in them? I forbear
to quote from his writings generally, in which he attacks
his predecessors, Parmenides, Hippias, Protagoras, Prodicus,
Gorgias, Polus, Theodorus, Thrasymachus and many others,
not writing of them in a spirit of perfect fairness, but (you
must pardon me for saying so) with a touch of vainglory.
There was, there really was in Plato’s nature, with all its
excellences, something of vainglory. He showed this par-
ticularly in his jealousy of Homer, whom he expels from his
imaginary commonwealth, after crowning him with a garland
and anointing him with myrrh’. Strange indeed to suppose
that Homer needed such compliments in the hour of his
expulsion, when it is through him that every refinement, and
in the end philosophy itself, passed into human life! But
let us suppose that Plato said all this in a spirit of perfect
fairness and simply in the interest of truth. What, then, was
there to excite surprise in our action when we obeyed his
ordinances, and wished to compare the discourses of his
successors with his own?
Furthermore, it will be seen that I am not the first and
only critic that has ventured to speak his mind about Plato.
Nor could anyone justly take me to task on the special ground
that I essayed to examine the most distinguished of philoso-
phers, and one more than a dozen generations earlier than
myself, in the hope forsooth of obtaining some credit thereby.
No, it will be found that many have done so before me, whether
1 Cp. Plat. Ref. iii. 398 A.
No
on
uw
On
96 DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSUS.
J IV , c de \tav Y Sl K / ‘\ \ poe
Xpovorv, ol d€ Mav VoTEpoY ETAaKMaTaVTES. Kal yap TH
/ / > “~ \ ‘\ / > Ka
ddypata du€Barov avrov tives Kal TOUS hdyous enéwWavTo
TP@TOV Mev O yrHoLWTaTos avTov pabyTys ’ApioToréAys,
¥ c \ = , , \ , .
ereita ol mept Kydioddapdv te Kal OedmopmTov Kat
Zoirov Kat ‘Imm7oddpavra kat Anuytpiov Kai ad\dou ovyvot,
ov dia POdvov } dia ditareyOnpoovynv Kopwdodrtes
aG\\a THY ahyPeav eEeralovTes. TomovTois dy Kal TyHAL-
KOUTOLS aVOpaoL Tapadelypact ypapmevos Kal Tapa TaVTAs
lal / iD , Oe ¢ , a NN /
TO peyloTw ATwWVL , ovdEV YyovENY THS diAocodov
c ian ~ b) / > ‘ > —N > 4
pyTopiKys Tovey addOTpLov ayabovs ayabots avre€eralwv.
> an a i
TEpl MEV OVY THS TpOaLpeoEws, NV ETXOV EV TH TVyKpicoeL
TOV XAPAKTHPWV, iKaV@S aTOhE\OyNal Kal Gol ye, Huw
pidrtare.
II
\ 8) Z, \ \ ITA Ga ¥ ,
Aourov & éo7i pou kat Tept avTav wv ElpynKa hoywr
Tepi TaVOpOs Ev TH TEPL ToV “ATTLK@Y TpaypaTEia PHTO-
= A , \ > A , c 3. uA ,
pov eimetv. Onow d€ avtats héferw, ws exet yeypada:
“H dé 67) TAatwvixy duddextos BovdeTar pev eivat Kat
AUTH pLlypLa EKATEPOV TAY XapaKTYHpwr, TOV TE VINOD Kat
icxvov, Kabamep elpytat pou mpotepov: mepuKe dé ovdx
Opolws Tpos auPoTepous TOUS KapaKTHpas EVTVXYS. OTaV
> A \
pev ov THY loxvyyv Kal aden Kal amolntov émuTNdEvY
, > / PS) As b) \ / A ,
dpacw, exToTws noeta eat. Kat diiavOpwios. Kabapa
TE yap aToyperTas yiveTar Kal Siavyys, woTep Ta dia-
havéotata Tov vapatwv, aKpiBys Te Kat hemTn Tap
nvTwouv éTépav Tov THY avTHV SiahexTov | cipyaopevwr.
THY TE KOLWOTHTA OLOKEL TOV OVOPATwWY Kal THY Tadyveray
GoKEL TAaONS VTEeploovaa KaTacKeuns emerov. oO TE
12 dmoXeddyiopar libri: corr. Reiskius. 17—p. 102, 4=ade adm. vi dic. in
Demosth. (A) cc. v—vii, pp. 964—969 R. 18 piypua (i.e. wetyua) A: detypa
libri. 22 7noeta) idia Pal. 23 Te om. A. 24 vaudrwy As: cwudtwv M
Pal B. 25 Tv M PalB: eis tH As. 27 Urmepidovca DBs: wrept-
dotcav M Pal.
759
LETTER TO POMPETUS. 97
in his own time or at a much later date. For his tenets have met
with disparagement and his discourses with criticism. First
on the list is his most representative disciple Aristotle, and next
Cephisodorus, Theopompus, Zoilus, Hippodamas, Demetrius,
and many others. These did not attack him out of envy
or malice, but in the search for truth. Encouraged accord-
ingly by the example of so many eminent men, and above all
of the great Plato himself, I considered that my action was
in no way alien to the spirit of philosophic rhetoric when
I matched good writers against good. As regards, therefore,
the principle on which I acted in comparing style with style,
I have defended myself sufficiently even in your eyes, my
dear friend.
II
I have now to refer to my actual remarks on Plato in
the treatise on the Attic Orators. I will quote the passage in
the words there written’. ‘The language of Plato, as I have
said before, aspires to unite two several styles, the elevated
and the plain. But it does not succeed equally in both.
When it uses the plain, simple, and unartificial mode of
expression, it has an extraordinary charm and attraction. It
is altogether pure and translucent, like the most transparent
_ of streams, and it is correct and precise beyond that of any
other writer who has adopted this mode of expression. It
pursues familiar words and cultivates clearness, disdaining all
extraneous ornament. The gentle and imperceptible lapse
1 de adm. vi dic. in Dem., cc. V.—Vii.
10
2
tN
wm
on
fe)
98 DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSUS.
, c “~ > , > / > a \ ,
Tivos 0 THS apyaLoTnTos Hpeua avTn Kal elnOotws
emiTpexer thapov TE Tu Kal TEAHAOS Ka pETTOY wWpas avOos
avadidwot, Kal W@oTEP ATO TOV EvwoETTATaV heYLaVOY
¥ ¢ “A > > “a / ‘\ »¥ XN ‘\
avpa Tis ndeta e€€ ad7ns P€peTar, Kal ovTE TO uyupov
ȴ > 4 / ȴ \ \ / 4
eo.key Euatvew aov ovrTe 70 Kop ov DeatpiKov. oTav
> > \ / XN Q A aA ,
5 els THY TEepiTTONOyiay Kal TO KadALETELY, O TOAAAKLS
¥ A“ » c \ 4 ~ , c A
etwle rovetv, apeTpov Opunv AaByn, TOAAW yYeEipwv EavTAS
ylweTau’ Kal yap andeatépa Kat KaKiov EAdnvilovea Kat
, , , \ \ \ , An
TaxutTepa patveTar’ pedatver TE TO Gades Kal Codw Toret
9 / lal
TapatAno.ov, EAKEL TE PAaKPOV aTOTELVOVTa TOV VOU,
/ \ / > > / 2) / | > a 2
ovo T pear de S€ov eV odvyots OVOP Gur. EKKXELTAL €LS 760
> / 4 A > le >
aTELPOKANOUS TEPLppaTeELs, TAOUTOV OVOLATOV ETTLOELKVV-
Levy, UTEploovoa S€ TAY KUpPLwV bvO“ATeV KAY TH KOWN
XpHTE KEEeVoV TA TETOLNEVa CyTEL Kal E€va Kal apyato-
TpeT). pariota dé yeysalerar Tept THY TpoTLUKHY dpacw:
Ton pev yap ev Tots emOerous, akatpos O Ev Tats peTw-
/ \ \ \ > 4 x >) lA >
vupias, okhypa d€ Kal ov celovca THY avahoylay ev
A A “4 > 4 4
Tals petadopats yiverat, addnyopias te meEpiBadderar
pakpas Kat moA\as ovTe peTpov €xovaas ovTE KaLpov.
TXYHpAT TE TOUNTLKOLS ExXaTHY TpoTBaddovow andiav
Kai padtota Tois Topyretous akaipws Kal peipaKkiwoas
> , Nc NEE e , sae > a ,
evaBpvveTar: Kat ‘7ohvs 0 TeheTNS EaTW EV TOLS TOLOUTOLS
> > or} ¢ \ , e \ ” , ‘\
Tap avT@, ws Kat Anuntpros 0 Padynpevs eipynKé Tov Kat
» / 5 \ b} x ¢€ A“
ahhor gvxvol: ov yap esos 0 pvGos.
Mybeis b€ pe tavta yyeioOw héyew amdons Katayr-
VOOKOVTA THS eyKaTacKevov Kal e&nhhaypevyns hé| Eews 761
1 at77 MPalB: om. Ass 2 idapdv M PalB: xdoepdv As. 4 géperar As:
eiapéperar M Pal B. 6 Kad\uerety A™ (i.e. codex M): xkd\\orov eirew M
Pal B xa\Xuov eimety A (volg.) s. 8 anédecrépa M Pal B: anéecrépa ris érépas
As. kakiey MB. g te A: re yap libri. Io azmoreivaca A. ir 6€ ante
déov om. A. xeirat 6 els A. 12, 13 émdekvupévn M Pal B: émcdeckvupevn
kevov As. 13. 6€ M PalB: ve As | évoudrwy M Pal B: om. As | cai év As cai M
Pal B: corr. Herwerdenus. 16 yap om. A | perwvupiaws A: émwvumias libri.
21 vyopyetos libri yopyios A: corr. Herwerdenus. 22 Tedérns| Us, monds 6
tedeTns M Pal B wodvuréXeca vis A. éorlv om. A. 24 ovxvol libri: cuxvoi
mpotepov A Sylburgius. 25 Taira 7yeloOw libri: Ta To.adra brohdBy A.
LETTER TO POMPEIUS. 99
of time invests it with a mellow tinge of antiquity ; it still
blooms in all its radiant vigour and beauty; a balmy
breeze is wafted from it as though from meadows full of
the most fragrant odours; and its clear utterance seems to
show as little trace of loquacity as its elegance of display.
But when, as often happens, it rushes without restraint into
unusual phraseology and embellished diction, it deteriorates
greatly. For it loses in charm, in purity of idiom, in light-
ness of touch. It obscures what is clear and makes it like
unto darkness; it conveys the meaning in a prolix and
circuitous way. When concise expression is needed, it lapses
into tasteless periphrases, displaying a wealth of words.
Contemning the regular terms found in common use, it seeks
after those which are newly-coined, strange, or archaic. It
is in the sea of figurative diction that it labours most of all.
For it abounds in epithets and ill-timed metonymies. It is
harsh and loses sight of the point of contact in its metaphors.
It affects long and frequent allegories devoid of measure
and fitness. It revels, with juvenile and _ unseasonable
pride, in the most wearisome poetical figures, particularly in
those of Gorgias; and “in matters of this kind there is a
good deal of the hierophant about him’,’ as Demetrius
of Phalerum has somewhere said as well as many others:
for “not mine the word®.”
‘Let no one suppose that I say this in general condemna-
tion of the ornate and uncommon style which Plato adopts.
1 Demetrius Phaler., fragm. * Eurip. fragm. 488 (Nauck, p. 46).
7—2
IO
15
20
25
100 DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSUS.
» Kexpyntac ddtwv (uy yap ovTw ocKaLos yevoimnv ware
/ \ / N > \ / “—N > ‘\
Tav7nv 7Hv dd€av mept avdpos THALKOVTOV haPelv), eel
TOANA Kal TEpl TOAA@Y oida peydra Kal OavpacTa Kat
b) \ A ¥ 4 > / (J) > a > >
a7 THS akpas Suvdpews eSernveypeva wm avTov: add
exetvo evdetEac Har Bovopevor, OTL Ta TOLAVTA apapTHmaTa
ev Tals KaTaoKevats ELwev auapTave, Kal yelpwv <péev>
avTOS aUTOV yiveTaL, OTaY TO péeya SLOKN Kal TEpLTTOV eV
™ bpdce, pakpo@ o€ Tut apeivar, oTav THY ioxvyY Kal
akpiBn <Kal> doxovoayv pev atolntov elvar KaTEecKeva-
/ \ > 4 XN 3 a “a (2
opevny O€ apopynT@ Kat adedet KatacKevyn SidthexTov
> / x ‘\ > \ c 4 a a 4 ‘\
elahepn: 7) yap ovdev apapraver 7) Kop.dyn Bpayd Te Kal
> 4 / SN Nines las »
ovK afwov KaTnyopias. eya dé n&lovy THALKOUTOV avdpa
Tmepuvrdaybar Tacav emitiunow. TavTa yap ol TE KaT
AUTOV YEVOMEVOL TAVTES ETITLL@TLY, WY TA GVOMATA OVdEV
“A / \ > ‘\ c = “A \ \ /
det pe Neyeuv, Kal avTOS EavT@ (TOUTO yap TO KapTpdTaTor):
fai \ | Ba ING > \A ah Aw ere OIG
Ho €TO Yep TNS LOLAS ATELPOKA LaS KAL OVOMLA EVET QavuTy) 762
70 OLOVpapBov: 0 vuv av yoéecOnv eya déyew adnOes ov.
la \ a YY c > \ / \ XN >
touto Oe trade eoixev, ws eyw vopilw, Tpadels pev ev
Tots XLwkparikots Siahdyous ioyvoTadtois ova Kal aKpl-
/ > / >’ > ») “~ 3: \ Las 4 SS
Beoraro.s, od peivas 8 &v avrots ahha THs Topytov kat
@ovkvdidov Katackevns epacbeis: wot ovdev e€&w TOV
ElKOTOS Ewedrev TEeLcETIaL OTdoaS TWA Kal TOV apapTy-
PaTwV apa TOUS ayabots, @Vv €XOVOLY Ol TOV avopav
EKELVWY YAPAKTHPES.
Ilapadetypara d€ THs tayvys Kat THS DiyAns éEews
1 Il\drov As: rAdtow THs Toa’rns ppdcews M Pal B. 2 wept] brép A.
3 kal ante 7epi om. A. 5 PovNduevov M Reiskius: Bovduevos Pal BAs | ra
om. A. 6 wer As: om. M Pal B. 7 avrov Bs: avrot M Pal. Q Kal
ante doxovoav As: om. M Pal B. Io auounrw Pals: duwxjrw MB apwunrws A.
Il 7% Kou.dy Bpaxd Te M Pal B: xaddmak 7 Bpaxv re Kopd7 As. 13 Tavra]
Us, raira libri. yap ol re] wévro Kal of A. I4 mdvres] ws duaprdvorTe
T@ avopi A. 14, 15 ovdév dei] ovOév déouwa A. yap M Pal B: yap 6n
As. 16 yap M PalB: yap ws douxev As. 17 70M PalB: 7dr As.
18 ws] ws wev A. 20 ovbéy A. 25 tmapadelyuara M Pal B: mapddevypa As
|
THs laxvjs Kal (r7js addit Pal) bYnrAAs M Pal B: rocotuac rs ye bWnd7s As.
LETTER TO POMPETIUS. 101
I should be sorry to be so perverse as to conceive this opinion
with respect to so great a man. On the contrary, I am well
aware that often and on many subjects he has produced
writings which are great and admirable and of the utmost
power. What I desire to show is that he is apt to commit
errors of this description in his more ornate passages, and that
he sinks below his own level when he pursues what is grand
and exceptional in expression, and is far superior when he em-
ploys the language which is plain and exact and seems to be
natural but is really elaborated with unoffending and simple
artifice. For then he commits either no errors at all or only
such as are extremely slight and venial. My own view, how-
ever, is that so great a man should have been perpetually on
his guard against any censure. Now all his contemporaries,
whose names I need not recall, reproach him with the same
fault; and the most striking thing is that he does so himself.
He was aware of his own lapse from good taste and gave
it the name of “dithyramb’”: a thing I had thought shame
to say, true though it be. This trait in him appears to me
to be due to the fact that, although he was bred among
the Socratic dialogues, which were most spare and most exact,
he did not continue under their influence, but became en-
amoured of the artificiality of Gorgias and Thucydides. It
was, therefore, no unnatural result that he should imbibe
some of the errors, together with the good points, exhibited
by the styles of those authors.
‘T will cite examples of the plain and the elevated style
1 Plat. Phaedr. 238 D (cp. 241 E).
10
15
20
25
102 DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSUS.
e€ evos BuB\ov tav mavu TepiBoynTwv Tapabyaopmat, EV
@ TOVS Epwrikovs 6 Lwkparns duateertar \dyous Tmpos Eva
A , an > > e \ > \ ” \
TOV yvopinwv Datdpov, ad ov THY exvypadynv etynde TO
, . NY
BuBNtov......... "Ev yap TovTo.s TO pevy TpaywaruKov
> “~ 4 la) > / Lal \ la) , ‘\
ovdapn pmeupopar TOV avdpos, Tov de hekTLKOV jLEpouS TO
/
TEpl THY TpoTLKHY Te Kat OLOvpapBiKny ppacw EeKTiTTOr,
ec lal nw lat c nA
€v ols OU KpaTel TOU pLETPLOV, ETLTLL@ TE OVX WS TOV
/ > > c > PS) \ , \ > \ aA 0 /
TvXOVT@V TW AAN ws avoplL peyarw Kal Eyyus THS CeELas
elnhvOor, pvcews, OTL TOV OyKOY THS ToLNTLKHS KaTa-
a > , »¥ / / ‘\ \
aoKeuys els hoyous nyaye hiioaodovs Cnwaas Tovs TeEpt
— , 9 \ a \
Dopylav, @ate Kat diOvpapBos Twa Trovety €oLKOTA, Kat
de > / a) Nye AP UNS ¢c oN “A
pyde atoxpvmteo Oat TovTO TO apap|tnua aN opodoyet.
; > A , \
Kal oU ye avtos, @ BédtioTe Veptve, Opmotav Ewou yvounv
\ 5 \ » 4 > > “~ / “~ > ia!
TEept TAVOPOS Eywr aiver du avTHS YE ToL THS emiaToARs,
ae \ y \ lal c ,
ev ois KaTa hEEv OVTW ypadels: ‘EV LEY Yap TOLS ETEPOLS
4, / ~ \ ,
TYXYAPMATL padiwoyv ETE pLeToVv TL ETatvov Kal pEuYpews’
> N OG a \ X 2 \ , > ,
ev O€ TH KaTaoKEUN TO py emiTEevXHev TavTy aToTVYyXa-
veTar. O16 shot OoKEL TOVTOVS TOYS avdpas OVK eK TOV
> 4 3 ‘\ > / > > > wn ,
ETLKLVOUVOTATWV OVdE eLacaaovaY, aAN €K TOV TAELOTWY
\ b) , Oe ia y) \ > > 4 a >
Kat evtvynbertwy efetalew. Kat per odiya mad eém-
héyets Tavti: ‘eyw d€ Kaimep Exwv atooyyoacbar dTEep
amTavTwv 7 TOV ye ThELaTMV Ov TOO ot EvavTia héyeLV:
év O€ TOUTO Suc yxupiCopaL, OTL OvK EaTL Leydws emiTVYELY
3 > \ / \ lal lal \ ,
€v ovdEevi TPOTHM py TOLAVTA TOAmaVTa Kal Tapafsaddo-
pevov, ev ols Kal odadd\ecOat eat avayKatov. Ovdev
diadhepopea mpos GAAjdovs: aU TE yap Opohoyets avay-
Kalov evar TOV emiBaddopevov peyddrots Kal ofpaddec Oat,
ToTe, eyo TE yur THS VMAS Kal peyadompemoUs Kal
1 BBXéov libri | rapaénoopuac] mouoouac M Pal B: om As. 2 0 Lwxparns
post Adyous traicit As | dcaréBecrat M Pal B: dvaridera As. 4 (BXbor libri |
verba complura hic excidisse manifestum est: cp. de adm. vi dic. in Dem. c. Vii.
5 Tau d€ NexTLKOU wEepous] Us, ras dé NéEews Te dprov libri. Q Gris: 6 TE
M Pal B. to eis Kruegero auctore Herwerdenus: «ail libri, émi Sylburgius.
13. yeuwe MB!: yrate Pals mg B | éuoay B. 1g émixwdvvwrarwy libri.
21 amodoyicacba M Pal. 23 peyddws M Pal? B peyadas Pal!: pweyddwyr s.
764
795
LETTER TO POMPETUS. 103
from one of the most celebrated books, in which Socrates
has addressed the discourses on Love to one of his associates,
Phaedrus, from whom the book takes its title....’
In this passage I blame in no way the subject-matter of
the writer, but the tendency in the department of expression
to figurative and dithyrambic diction, matters wherein Plato
loses command of the due mean. And I criticise him not
as an ordinary mortal but as a great man who has come near
the standard of the divine nature. His fault is that, in
imitation of the school of Gorgias, he has introduced the
pomp of poetical artifice into philosophical discourses, so
that some of his productions are of the dithyrambic order.
And what is more, he does not even attempt to hide this
failing but avows it. It is clear from your own letter, ex-
cellent Geminus, that you yourself entertain the same opinion
as I with regard to him. For you write thus, to quote
your own words: ‘In other forms of expression there may
well occur something which deserves mingled praise and
blame. But in embellishment whatever is not success 1s
utter failure. So that, in my opinion, these men should be
judged not by their few most hazardous attempts but by
their many successes’, And a little later you add the
following words: ‘Although I could defend all, or at any
rate most, of these passages, I do not venture to gainsay you.
But this one thing I strongly affirm, that it is not possible
to succeed greatly in any way without such daring and
recklessness as must needs fail now and then®. There is no
quarrel between us. You admit that the man who aspires to
great things must sometimes fail, while 7 say that Plato,
' Cn. Pompei fragm. 2 Cn. Pompei frag.
104 DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSUS.
, / > / 4 \
Tapakexwouveuperns ppacews edieuevov Ildkatwva pay
TEplt TavTa TA pepy KaTopOov, TOO aTHVY pEVTOL LOLpar 766
eye Tov KaTopOovpévev Ta Siapapravomeva VT avTOD.
kat Kal’ év rovTo TAatwva dye detzrer Oar AnpooGeévous,
5 OTL Tap @ pev exmimtTe ToTe TO Whos THS A€EEws | TOV
, > \ X \ > 4 > rs \ > , Xx
Aéywr | eis TO Kevdov Kal andes, Tap’ @ dé ovderoTE 7
/ La ‘\ \ \ , an
OTAVLWS WAS KOMLOn. KQL TEPL MEV IlAatwvos TOOQUTG.
ent
epi dé ‘Hpoddrov kat Zevodhavtos €BovdyOns palew,
, A > ~ c / »” Ss / A > lal
Tiva TEpl avTa@V vTOAN WW EXO, Kal yparpat ME TEPL AVTOV
> , , \ a a N ,
10 €BovdAHOns. wemoinka | kat] TovTO ots <mpos> Anuntprov
UTELVNMATLT LAL TEPL pLILnTEws. TOVTMV O MEY TPOTOS
avTiy mepiethnde THY TEpL THS pyrnoews LyTnoW, O dE
SeVTEpos TEpl TOV Tivas avdpas pupecoOar Set ToinTas TE
XN "2 c , \ cae
Kat diioaddous, tatopioypadovs <TE> Kal pyTopas.
15/6 8€ Tpitos mepl ToD Tas Set pipetoOar péxpL TOvOE 767
aTedys. €v d€ TO Sevtépw Tept ‘Hpoddrov TE Kat Oov-
Kvoloov Kal Zevodavtos kal PuitoTov Kat Oeomopzrov
(rovTous yap eKKpivw Tods avdpas <as> els plunow
> / 4 /
emiTNOELoTaTOUs) TAE ypapw*
> \ “A \ \ , lal > ~ \ \ c ,
20 Ei € dec Kal wept avdra@v eimeiv, TEpt pev Hpodorov
‘\ / wn ~ la / \ ‘\
kat @ovkvd(dov tatta ppova. TpaTov TE Kal oyEdoV
GVaYKALOTATOV Epyov amrdvTwv eal TOLs ypapovaew TaTAs
c Py e / > / \ \ fp
iotoplas wmoleow éxhéEacbar Kahynv Kal KEyaplopevnv
Tots avayvocopevots. TovTO ‘Hpddoros KpettTdv jou SoKEL
/ “~ e
25 TETOLNKEVaL MovKvoloov. ekElvOs pev yap KowwHnY EXXy-
5,6 aut ris Aéfews aut Tov Ndywv expellendum. 6 Kevov MB! xawov
Pal B?s | ad\nOés M Pal B andes s: corr. Holwellus. 1o 6Kal seclusit Usenerus
ex antecedente syllaba natum esse ratus. 10, 11 ois mpds Anunrpiov vreuvn-
pdriopat] Us, els Anunrproy brouvnuariopoy libri. 12 <nrnoews piunow libri:
corr. Sylburgius. 15 péxpe Tovde] Us, wept rovrov dé libri. 18 é€xxpivwy
libri | ws supplevit Reiskius. 21 mpardv te] Us, mp@rov 67 libri.
LETIER LO POMPETUS. 105
in his desire for elevated and stately and audacious diction,
did not succeed in every detail, but that his mistakes are
nevertheless only a small fraction of his successes. And in
this one respect, I say, Plato is inferior to Demosthenes,
that with him elevation of diction sometimes lapses into
emptiness and dreariness, whereas with Demosthenes this
is never so, or only very rarely. This is what I have to say
with reference to Plato.
III
You wished also to learn my view with regard to Hero-
dotus and Xenophon, and you wished me to write about
them. This I have done in the essays I have addressed to
Demetrius on the subject of imitation. The first of these
contains an abstract inquiry into the nature of imitation.
The second asks what particular poets and philosophers,
historians and orators, should be eaiied The third, which
treats of the proper manner of imitation, remains unfinished.
In the second I write as follows concerning Herodotus,
Thucydides, Xenophon, Philistus and Theopompus, these
being the writers whom I select as most suitable for
imitation :
These are my opinions concerning Herodotus and
Thucydides, if I must extend my remarks to them. The
first, and one may say the most necessary, task for writers
of any kind of history is to choose a noble subject and one
pleasing to their readers. In this Herodotus seems to me
to have succeeded better than Thucydides. He has produced
wt
Io
=
wt
to
Ur
106 DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSUS.
~ \ A , > , c ,
vukav Te Kat BapBapikav mpakewv e€evyvoyey toTopiar,
‘ws myTe Ta yevomeva €€ avOpadrrav e€itnra yévnTar, pyTE
Epya, Kal aTEp AUTOS ElpNKE. TO yap avTO TpooipLOV
\ > N ‘\ 4 > \ “~ c / c \ /
Kal apy? Kal TéAOS ETL THS LaTOpias. Oo d5€ OBovKvdidys
TONELoV Eva ypade, Kal TOUTOV | OVTE KAOV OUTE EUTVYT
a / \ ¥ \ / > \ , nw
Os padtiota pev were py yevéeobar, ei dé pH, TLwTH
\ , \ ¢ XN “A > / > ial
kat AnOn wapadofeis 7rd TaV eryiopevev Hyvona bat.
7 \ \ ¥ c / \ > / A
OTe d€ Tovnpay etlyndev UTdHerW, Kal avTos ye TOUTO
Tovet havepov €v TH TpooyLiw: TodELs TE yap Su avTov
e€epnpwlnvat dnor Todas “EhAnvidas, Tas pev vad
/ \ > ¢ \ lon > “A X\ 4 \
BapBapwv, tas 8 b7d odhav aitav, Kal dvyadeias Kat
hOdpovs avOpeTtwv ocovs ovT@ Tpotepov yevér Oar,
, \ b) \ \ , \ 4 \
TELTMOVS TE KAL AVXMOUS Kal VOTOUS Kal adAas TONGS
y
cunmopas. WOTE TOUS avayVvovTas TO mpootmioy 7AXo-
Tprwobar mpos Tv vmTdbecw, “E\AnviKav peANovTas
akove. Oow € KpeltTwv 4 Ta Oavpacta epya Snovoa
‘EMAjvev te Kat BapBapov ypady THs TA olKTpa Kal
dewa aly Tav Eddyjvev diayyehhovons, TorovT@ dpo-
, c / / Ss \ > ‘A Lal
vysotepos Hpddotos Movkvdidov Kata THY exkoynVv THS
¢ 4 > \ XN > \ La) »” > lal 7 >
vroblécews. ov6€ yap ovde ToUTO EveoTi eizely, OTL Ot
> , > > N , \ , > , \
avaykKyV nev emt Tavtnv THV ypadnv, emuaTapevos <pmev
w@s> exetva KadNiw, Bovddopevos | d€ py TadTa Erépots 769
ypadew: av yap Tovvavtiov é€v TH TpooyLiw Siacvpwv
\ \ »” /, / \ > CLE
Ta Tahaa epya paltota Javpaciwtata ta Kal? avrov
> , \ i) \ , > an ce ‘\
emiTeheoOevta dyow eivar, Kal davepos éeoTL TaVTAa EKaV
¢ / > XN ¢ / , la > is b) ‘\
Ehopevos. ov pay “Hpddords ye tovto émoinaev, adda
TOV TPO AVTOV Tvyypadewv yevonevwyv “EhXavikov TE Kat
> * \ > \ ¢ / / ; > >
Xdpwvos THv avtyv vTdfecw TpoEeKdedwKdTwY OVK aTeE-
TpameTo, aN emiotevoey avT@ Kpetooov TL e€oiceu:
OTEP KAL TETOLNKED.
I BapBapixav| Schaeferus, BapBdpwy libri. 3 mpoolucoy Te Kai libri.
8 yes: te MB Pal. II gvuyadeias] Us, puyddas M Pal B gvyas s.
21,22 ev ws post -mevos inseruit Usenerus. 24 padwoTa] wadtora Kai
libri. 28 x xatpwvos libri: corr. Stephanus. 29 atT® M atrov B Pals:
corr. Herwerdenus.
LETTER TO POMPEIUS. 107
a national history of the conflict of Greeks and barbarians, ‘in
order that neither should the deeds of men fade into oblivion,
nor should achievements’, to quote from his opening words.
For this same proem forms both the beginning and the end of
his History. Thucydides, on the other hand, writes of a single
war, and that neither glorious nor fortunate ; one which, best
of all, should not have happened, or (failing that) should have
been ignored by posterity and consigned to silence and oblivion.
In his Introduction he makes it clear himself that he has
chosen a bad subject, for he says that many cities of the
Greeks were desolated because of the war, partly by the
barbarians and partly by themselves, while proscriptions and
massacres greater than any before known occurred, together
with earthquakes and droughts and plagues and many other
calamities*. The natural consequence is that readers of the
Introduction feel an aversion to the subject, for it is of the
misfortunes of Greece that they are about to hear. As clearly
as the story of the wonderful deeds of Greeks and barbarians
is superior to the story of the sad and terrible disasters of
the Greeks, so clearly does Herodotus show better judgment
than Thucydides in his choice of subject. Nor can it truth-
fully be said that Thucydides was driven, with full knowledge
that the earlier events were grander, into this piece of writing
by a desire not to treat of the same theme as others. On the
contrary, he makes extremely light in his Introduction of the
events of ancient days, and says that the achievements of his
own time were the most remarkable. It is clear, therefore,
that his choice was deliberate. Very different was the course
taken by Herodotus. Although his predecessors, Hellanicus
and Charon, had previously issued works on the same subject,
he was not deterred, but trusted his own ability to produce
something better. And this in fact he has done.
1 Herod. I. 1. 2 Thucyd. I. 23.
108 DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSUS.
AevTeEpov Eat THS LaTOPLKHS TpaypaTeElas Epyov yvavar
, ¥ ‘SB ‘\ 4 ~ nn wn 7
Tolev Te apEacbar Kai péypte TOV mpoedOety Set. hatverar
57) Kav TovVT@ PovKvdidov Tod “Hpddotos Ppovys,atepos:
apxeTat Te ad 7S aitias ypEavTo TpaTOV KaK@s TroLELY
5 ToUs EdAnvas ot BapBapot, Kat tpoedOav eis THY <ToY>
BapBapov ko\acw Kat Tyswplav Ajyer. 6 5€ BovKvdi(dys
apyyVv pev erojnoato ad Hs npat ov Kad@s Tpadtrew 770
TO “EMAnvikov: omep “EXAnva ovra kai APnvatov ovK eeu
Tove (Kal TAUTA OV TAY aTrEppLlmLpEeVvaV OVTA, GAN’ @V eV
10 TpwTots Hyov “A@nvator oTpatnyi@v Te Kal TOV addov
Tys6ov akiovvTes)* Kal ovTw ye POovepas, wate Kal TH
TOMEL TH EavTOV Tas havepas aitias TOU TOEMOV TrEpL-
/ c / ¥ “A B) ~ / \
ANTE, ETEPals EXoVTAa ToAAals adhoppats TEptaar Tas
aizias, Kat apfacbai ye ths Sinyyoews py amd TOV
15 Kepkupatkov, ah’ amd TeV Kpatiotwv THs TaTploos
yy aA \ XV XN / > \ ¥
Eepywov, a peta Tov Ilepouxov mohepov evfds empakev
(av UVoTEepov Kav aveTITNOELwW TOTH pYHENVY eToLyoaTO
pavrws Tas Kal e€ emidpopuns), SuehOov7a dé TavTa pera
lan ’ 4 c + 4 4 > 3 aN
mohlns evvoias ws avdpa iiomodww emer ereveyKely,
2007 TovTov dbdvw Kat déev TpoehOdvTes Aakedapoviot
4 c / c 4 a SaaN XN /
Tpopaces vrolevtes ETepolas HAPov emi TOV TOdEpMO?,
X\ , 4 ‘\ r oe \ \ \ ‘\ 4,
Kat TOTE Aéeyew Ta Kepkupatka Kat To Kata Meyapéwv
undirpa Kai ev | TL dAdo ToLOUTO Aéyewy EBoveTo. Ta O 771
> / / c , , / XN id
ev Te\et TAELOVOS apapTias TAP: KaiTEp yap éywv
to
wn
OTL TAaVTL T® TOEULW TapeEyeveTo, Kal TaVvTa SyOoEL
UTOTKOMEVOS, Eis THY Vavpayiay TehevTA THY TEpL Kuvos
ona yeyernuevny “AOnvatwv Kat He\otovynoiov, 7
avvéBn Kata €Tos elkooTOv Kal dSevTepov. KpettTov Oe
> wn ,
nv due€ehOovta TavTa TedkevTHY TonTaTOaL THS LaTOpLAs
5 7Twy supplevit Herwerdenus. 7 npear’ ov] Us, jpéaro libri.
g ameppyruéevev Holwellus, ére elpnuévey libri. 11 @§ovepws) Herwerdenus,
gpavepas libri. 17 Kav avemirnoeiw] Kruegerus, kal év émcrndety libri.
21 €érepoias] Us, érépors M Pal Bs | yp. érépas Stephanus p. 77. 23,24 Tad
év TéXet] Us, ra 6€ 7éX7 libri.
LETTER TO POMPEIUS. 109
A second function of historical investigation is to deter-
mine where to begin and how far to proceed. In this
respect, again, Herodotus displays far better judgment than
Thucydides. He begins with the cause of the original
injuries done to the Greeks by the barbarians, and goes on
his way till he ends with the punishment and retribution
which befell them. Thucydides, on the contrary, starts with
the incipient decline of the Greek world. This should not
have been done by a Greek and an Athenian, and (what is
more) no unappreciated citizen but one to whom his country-
men assigned a foremost place, entrusting him with com-
mands and offices generally. In his malice, he finds the
overt causes of the war in the conduct of his own city,
although he might have found many other grounds for the
outbreak. He might have begun his narrative not with the
affairs of Corcyra, but with the magnificent achievements of
his country immediately after the Persian War, achievements
which subsequently he mentions at the wrong point and in
a perfunctory and cursory way. After he had described these
events with all the enthusiasm of a patriot, he should then
have added that it was through envy and dread thus oc-
casioned that the Lacedaemonians were led to engage in
the war, for which they suggested motives of a different
nature. He should next have related the occurrences
at Corcyra and the decree against the Megarians, together
with anything else of the kind he wished to mention. The
conclusion of his work is tainted by a more serious error.
Although he states that he watched the entire course of the
war and promises a complete account of it, yet he ends with
the sea-fight which took place off Cynossema between the
Athenians and Peloponnesians in the twenty-second year of
the war. It would have been better, after he had described all
the details of the war, to end his History with a most remark-
mn
se)
20
ty
110 DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSTS.
Tv Oavpaciwwratrny Kal paliota Tots akovovaL KExapt-
ohevnv, THY KaDodSov Tov dvyddwv TOV ad PudAs ad
av 7 Todus apEapevy THY elevdeptay Eexopicoato.
Tpitov éoriv avdpos totopiKkov <aKoTetv>, Tiva Te det
TaparaBew eri THY ypadny Tpaypara kai Tiva TapaduTeww.
A , > , / ; / \
Soxet dy por Kav TOUT Nettrec Oar BovKvdidys. Tuverdas
yap “Hpddotos, ote Tava pyjkos Exovoa TOAD Sunyynous
av mev avaTavoes Twas KapBavy, Tas Wuxas TOY aKpow-
pov déws dwatiOnow, éav S€ emi Tov | adtav péry
TpaypaTwv, Kav TA paioTa eTLTVyXavyTaL, huTEL THY
b) \ ~ 4 4 > / “~ \ \
akonv TO KOpw, ToLKinv EBovryHAn Tonoa THY ypadHv
rd , \ , \ \ \ , \
Opypov Cnrwrms yevopevos: Kat yap to BuBdiov Hv
> A / 4 La > 4 ~ b) 4
avTov AdBopev, mexpe THS EayaTns avAABHs ayapeBa
\ 37N ‘\ 4 5 “A , \ 4
Kal ae TO Téov emilnTtovpev. OovKvodidyns dé modEepov
eva Katateivas amvevott Ove€epyeTar payas eml payars
Kal TapackEevas ETL TapacKevals Kat hoyous emt oyous
ovvtleis: wore poet péev THY Sidvorav TOV akpowpevor.
< / a0 y. b] \ ¢€ 4 ¢ \ / \ x , >
Kopov © eye.’ dyotv 6 Iivdapos ‘kat pédu Kat Ta TépTry
/ ¥ a col
avle adpodiowa. dn <0 o> éyw Kaketvos éevefupnOn,
¢ ¢ \ ~ > ¢ 4 7 \ XN /
ws NOV xpHpa ev Latoplas ypady pretaBodn Kal TrovKidor,
Kal TovTO é€v SVO 7 TpLol TdmToLs ETOinoeEV, ETL TE THS
> la > ~ > a 324 > / , \ SRSX
Odpvaav apyjs, dv as aitias éyévero peyahy, Kai emt
Tov ev Yukehia TOdEwD.
| Mera tovro epyov é€otiv iatopiKov drehéo Oar Te Kal
Ta€ar Tov Onovpévwv EkacTov ev @ Set TOTM. TOS OUV
e , a“ ‘\ 4 ‘\ / 4
ExadTEpos Svaipeirar Kal TaTTEL TA heydpeva; BovKvdidys
\ on) / . AG c 50 be a a
pep Tots ypovots akohovav, Hpodotos de Tats wEptoyats
TOV Tpaypatov. Kal yiverar BovKvdidns pev acadys
5 , an \ een Sas ,
Kal OvaTrapakohovOnros: Tohhav yap Kata 70 avTO H€pos
Kal YElyova yiwouevwv ev Siaddpois ws ElKOS TOTOLS,
lol ‘ 4
NPLTEAELS Tas TpaOTas Tpakets KaTAahLT@Y ETEpwY aTTETAL
4 oKkotretv supplevit Reiskius. 7 é€xovca tod] Herwerdenus, éxouca
amo Noyou libri. 15 kararetvas| Us, kat twas libri. 19 6 6 Néyw KaxKetvos
evebuundn| Us, 6é ey Kaxetvo éveduynOnp libri.
773
LETTER TO POMPETUS. rit
able incident and one right pleasing to his hearers, the return
of the exiles from Phyle, from which event dates the recovery
of freedom by Athens.
A third task of the historian is to consider which occur-
rences he should embody in his work and which he should
omit. In this respect, again, it seems to me that Thucydides
is inferior. Herodotus, on his part, wished, in imitation of
Homer, to give variety to his History. He was aware that
every prolonged narrative affects the mind of the hearer
pleasantly if it contains a number of pauses, but wearies and
satiates (however successful it may otherwise be) if confined
to one and the same series of events. If we take up his
book, we are filled with admiration till the last syllable and
always seek for more. Thucydides, on the other hand, in
breathless haste and straining every nerve, describes a single
war, heaping battle on battle, armament on armament, word
on word. The hearer’s mind is in consequence exhausted.
‘Even honey,’ as Pindar says, ‘and the pleasant flowers of
love bring satiety.’ Occasionally Thucydides has himself
realised the truth of my contention that, in a historical
writing, change is pleasant and gives variety, and he has
taken this course in two or three passages—in inquiring into
the cause of the growth of the Odrysian kingdom and in
describing the cities of Sicily”.
Next it is the function of a historian so to arrange his
materials that everything shall be found in its proper place.
How, then, do these authors respectively arrange and divide
what they have to say? Thucydides keeps close to the
chronological order, Herodotus to the natural grouping of
events. Thucydides is found to be obscure and hard to follow.
As naturally many events occur in different places in the course
of the same summer or winter, he leaves half-finished his
1 Pind. Mem. VII. 52. 2"Gp: Thucyd. 1%, 97; VI. 2—s.
un
IO
to
Ur
30
II2 DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSTS.
lal \ , x» \ > XN “~ , 4
[tov Kata Oépos 7) TOV adToV YELLaVa ywopevar |* Tave-
\ , > / \ 4 ~~ we
peOa 5x) Kabarep eikos, kai dvaKdhas Tots Syndovpevots
TapaKko\ovlovpev TapaTToperns THS Suavolas. “Hpddotos
\ > ‘\ ae A / > / \ , “A
d€ awd THs Avdav Baciretas apEdpevos Kal péype THs
r , N > \ > aa > / XN 4
Kpotoov KkataBas ém7t Kupov eviews tov Katahioavta
mv Kpotoov apxnv petaBatver, Atyumtiov te apyerau
8 / \ Nv Q lal \ A“ ‘ \ c > 7
nyneateov Kat SKkvOikov Kat AvBuKav, Ta pev ws aKO-
hovia Snrav, ta S€ ws emilynrovpeva tpocavarapBavor,
7a 5 ws Yapieotepav TojoorTa THY Oinynow eTELTdyov"
dueEehOav te mpakeas “EAAnvav Kai BapBapwv erecw
dod Siakoctlots Kal ElKooL yevopmevas ev Tals Tpiolw
NTELpols KAL Tapaypaibas THS ZépEov huyns THY totopiav
ov dieoTace THY Sinynow: ara cup BEBnKE TO peVv play
jw Supyn pBEBnKe 70 pev pp
v7dlecw aBovte Toa ToLnoa pé 0 & O@ D
n Hépyn TO &Y Toma, TO
\ \ \ \ > \ > /, (3 / ,
d€ Tas wohAas Kal ovdey Eorkvias UTobecers TpoElopeva
ovpdhwvov ev COMA TETOMKEVAL.
Mias 8 id€as emunvynoOyoopar TpaypatiKns, nv ovde-
plas TOV ElpNuEevwY NTTOV ev aTTacaLs LoTOpiats Cynrodper,
THY avTOV TOV cvyypadEews didfeow, 7 KExpNTaL Tpds TA
/ SA e / ¢ \ ¢c 4 4 >
Tpaypata Tept av ypader: 1 pev “Hpoddtov diabecrs ev
aTagw eTLELKNS Kal Tols pev ayabois cuyndopern, Tots de
Kakols Tuvahyovaa: 7 S€ OovKvdtdov dudHects adbexacros
TIS KAL TLUKPa Kal TH TaTpld. THS buynS pYnoLKaKOVGA.
Ta fev yap apapTypata eme€€pxeTar Kal pda axpiBas,
Tov O€ KATA VOUV KEYwpnKOTaV <i> KabdaTa€E od péemvy-
TAL, } WOTEP NvayKac LEVOS.
| Kai cata pev Tov mpaypatiKoy TomOY nTT@V eoTiv
‘Hpoddrov d1a tavta Oov«vdidns: Kara dé TOV heKTLKOV
\ A 4 \ \ 4 ‘\ > ¥ > an \ ‘
Ta pev nITwv, Ta S€ KpeitTwv, Ta SO toos. epw S€ Kat
\ 4 e c 4
TEpt TOVTWY, ws vTELAnda.
Tey aeeeee ywou.evwy: emblema, ut videtur. 6 peraBalver...... 7 Ounyn-
parwy omissa addit mg M!. 8 émi(nrotmeva mpos dvadauBdvev. Tad ws M:
om. Pal Bs. 25 7 ante ka@dmaé addidit Herwerdenus. 26 jvayKkacpuéevos]
Reiskius, 7vayxacpeévws libri. 27 TOomov] TovToy libri.
774
775
LETTER TO POMPEIUS. 113
account of one set of affairs and takes other events in hand.
Naturally we are puzzled, and follow the narrative impatiently,
as our attention is distracted. Herodotus, on the other hand,
begins with the dominion of the Lydians and comes down
to that of Croesus, and then passes at once to Cyrus who
destroyed the empire of Croesus. Then he begins the story
of Egypt, Scythia, and Libya*. He relates some of the
events as a sequel, takes up others as a missing link, and in-
troduces others as likely to add to the charm of the narrative.
Although he recounts affairs of Greeks and barbarians which
occurred in the course of some two hundred and twenty years
on the three continents and finally reaches the story of the
flight of Xerxes, he does not break the continuity of the
narrative. The general result is that, whereas Thucydides
takes a single subject and divides one whole into many
members, Herodotus has chosen a number of subjects, which
are in no way alike, and has produced one harmonious whole.
I will mention one other feature of the treatment of
subject-matter, a feature which in all histories we look for
no less than for any of those already mentioned. I mean
the attitude which the historian himself adopts towards the
events which he describes. The attitude of Herodotus is
fair throughout, showing pleasure in the good and grief at
the bad. That of Thucydides, on the contrary, is severe and
harsh and proves that he bears a grudge against his country
because of his exile. For he details her misdeeds with the
utmost exactitude, but when things go right, either he does
not mention them at all, or only like a man under com-
pulsion.
In subject-matter Thucydides is for these reasons inferior
to Herodotus ; in expression he is partly inferior, partly su-
perior, partly equal. I will state my views on these points also.
1 Herod. 1. 2 Herod. I1., 1V.
wn
10
I
to
5
114 DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSUS.
. , a > la , > »” ce \ > \ A
Ilpwrm Twv apeTwv yevoiT av, NS Xwpls Ovde TaV
» ~ \ QA , A / c X\ wn
ad\Nwv T@V TEpt TOUS oyous odedos TL, H Kafapa Tots
SSe7 \ \ ca Ny a ¢¢ ,
dvopmace Kat Tov “EAAnviKdy yapakTnpa celovoa did-
MexTos. TavTnv akpiBovow appdtepor: “Hpddords Te yap
THs lados apiotos Kavav OovKvdidys te THS “ATOidos. * *
TpiTnV EXEL YOpav 7 Kahovperyn avvTopia: ev TavTy SoKet
4 c / / / 4 » c
mpo€xew Hpoddrov MovuKvdidys. KaiTor héyou Tis av, ws
\ lo ‘a > 4 AOL / ‘ /
peTa TOV Gadovs e€eTraldpevov ydv datverar TO Bpayv:
5 \ ’ , / / 5 \ \ YY
el d€ azoXeElzoLTO TOVTOU, muKpov: aha | pendev <YTTWY > 776
EOTW TAPA TOUTO. EVAPYELA [LETA TAVTA TETAKTAL TPOTY
pev Tov eTilerwy apeTav: ikavas ev TavTN KaTopfovow
Gpporepor. pera TavTnv ouviotatar THY apernv [Tav|
nOav Te Kat TAO pipynows: SuppyvTar THY apeTny TavTHV
c ~ 4 A \ \ / nw
ol ovyypadets: Oovkvdidyns pev yap Ta TaOy Snrooau
Kpetttav, Hpddoros d€ ta ye On trapactynoar SewdTeEpos.
peTa TAVTA ai TO péeya Kal Oavpacrov expaivovear THs
KATAOKEVNS apEeTal’ lool Kav TavTaLs ol ovyypadets.
EmovTal TavTats al THY layVY Kal TOV TOVOV Kal Tas
OpoLoTpoTrous SuVvapels THS Ppadwews apeTal TEpLeyovoat:
4 > A c / / c \ \
Kpetttwv ev tavtats “Hpoddrov Oovkvdidns. ndovynv de
\ \ \ / \ \ c ~ > \ > i 4
Kat Tew Kat Téepibw Kal TAS OfmoLOYEVEls apEeTas Elope-
pees. Si , ¢ AS A 5: ,
peTar pakp@ MovKvdioov Kpeittovas Hpodotos. THs <de> |
/ [ “~ . 4, F \ \ \ 4 c 3)
dpacews |Tav bvopatwy| TO pev Kata Piaow “Hpddotos
e(yoke, TO O€ Sevvov BovKvdidns. Tacav év hoyous
apeToV 1) KUpLwTaTH TO TpeToV: TavTHY O “HpddoTos
akpyBot paddov 7 Bovevdidys: dpoedys yap ovTos ev
Tact, Kav Tals Onunyopiats wahdov 7H Tats | Sunynoeow: 777
3 ‘\ /, \ ‘- / r / la \ 5 4
Emo pevto. kal TH PidTaT@ Karkidiw doxet Ta EvOupypata
avTov paliata <purnoacbat> te Kat (yraocar Anpo-
1 ovdé| Us, ov6éy libri. 2 b&eddste M? bpeddstts M! Pal B.
5 lacunam
perspexit Sylburgius. 9 7TTwy supplevit Kruegerus. 11 ev] Us,
pera. libri. 12 7wy seclusit Usenerus. 15 yes, Te M Pal B. 22 és: |
om. M Pal B. 23 Tw dvoudrwy delevit Reiskius. 24 duoerdns post
Oovxvdiéns praebent libri ex v. 26 ut videtur perperam petitum | tracy] Burck-
hardtius, was wy libri. 29 padioTra munoacbal Te] Sauppius, wadiora ye libri.
> ae
LETTER TO POMPEIUS. 115
The first of excellences is that without which style
is of no worth in any of its aspects,—language pure in
vocabulary and true to Greek idiom. In this respect both
are correct writers. Herodotus represents the highest standard
of the Ionic dialect, Thucydides of the Attic....Third in order
comes the so-called ‘concision.’ In this Thucydides is com-
monly held to excel Herodotus. It might, indeed, be objected
that it is only when united with clearness that brevity is found
to be attractive ; if it fails in this, it is harsh. However, let us
suppose that Thucydides is in no way inferior because of his
obscurity. Vividness comes next in order as the first of the
extraneous excellences. In this respect both authors are
decidedly successful. After this excellence the imitation of
traits of character, and of emotions, presents itself. Here
the historians divide the credit, for Thucydides excels in
expressing the emotions, whilst Herodotus has greater skill
in representing aspects of character. Next come the ex-
cellences which exhibit loftiness and grandeur of composition.
Here, again, the historians are on a par. Then come the
excellences which comprise strength and energy and similar
qualities of style. In these Thucydides is superior to
Herodotus. But in grace, persuasiveness, charm and the
like excellences, Herodotus is far superior to Thucydides.
In his choice of language Herodotus aims at naturalness,
Thucydides at intensity. Of all literary virtues the most
important is propriety. In this Herodotus is more careful
than Thucydides, who everywhere (and in his speeches still
more than in his narrative) shows a want of variety. My
friend Caecilius, however, thinks with me that his enthymemes
have been imitated and emulated in a special degree by
8—2
Io
15
20
25
116 DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSUS.
, 9 \ ‘\ ¥ \ \ c -
cléyns. wa d€ cuvehov eizw, Kahal pev at Tounoets
5 , > \ x» > / , > x /
auddrepar (ov yap av atoyurleiny Toijces adtas héyav),
4 \ \ A / ) id 4 SS \
diad€povor S€ kata TovTO padiota adAnhwv, OTL TO peV
‘Hpoddrov KahXos tkapov €ort, poBepov dé Td OouKvdioov.
aTroxpyn TavTa eipnobar Tept TovTwY TaV cuyypadéwr,
‘an \ ¥ > / / \ @ Nees
To\N@v Kal a\\wy evdvtwv héyer Oat, TEpL GV Kal ETEPOS
» /
€OTAL KQLpPOS.
IV
— on \ \ 4 e / > /
Eevohov d€ kat Pittotos ot TovTo.s eTaKpacavTes
ovTe voces Opmotas eEiyov ovTE Tpoaipécets. Hevodpov
\ ‘\ c / \ 3 / > > {? \
pev yap Hpoddrov (ndwr7s eyéveto Kar’ appotépous Tovs
A \
XapakTnpas, TOV TE TpaypwatiKoy Kal TOV NeEKTLKOV.
TpaTov pev yap Tas vTobéces TOV LtaTOpLav e&ehéEaTo
ha \ Nn a N33 5 \ d x ip ,
Kalas Kal peyadompe7ets Kal avdpt diioaddw TpooyKov-
/ wi By / +) / / b] nw
as: THY Te K¥pou Tatdeiay, eikova Bacidréws | ayabod
XN > / \ \ > / “ 4 ,
Kal evdaipmovos: Kal THY avaBaciw Tov vewrépov Kupou,
@ Kal avTos ovvaveBn, péytoToV eyKa@plovy Exovaay TOV
, es , \ , ¥ \ ‘
ovotpatevoapevovy EhAyvav: Kat Tpi7nv eT. THY EAANVL-
\ NG / > a / > e 4 ,
Kn Kal HY KaTehuTev aTEhn OovkKvdidns, ev 7 KaTahVovTat
¢ / \ N / aA > / a
TE Ol TpLadkoVTA KaL TA TELyN TaV "AOnvaiwy, a AaKedat-
, - > Sane > , \ na
peoviot Kabethov, adOus avioratat. ov povov dé TaV
/ > lo - ¢
vrolécewv yapw a&ios erawetabar | Cyrwrns “Hpoddrov
yevopmevos|, ahha Kal THS OlKOVOLas: Tals TE Yap apyats
aVTOV TALs TPETMOETTATALS KEXPNTAL Kal TEAEVTAS EKATTY
Tas eTUTNOELOTATAS aATOOeOMKE, pEeepLKEY TE Kaos Kal
4 \ 4 x / aS iA > /
TETAVE KA TETOLKIAKE THY ypadyy. Odds TE eridEiKVUTAaL
JeoweBes Kat OiKaLOV Kal KAPTEPLKOV Kal EUTETES, ATAT ALS
te auAAHBSnv KEeKoTpHEVoY apeTats’ Kal 6 weVv Tpayywa-
TUKOS TUTOS AUT@ TOLOUTOS.
17,18 ‘ENAqvexny kal qv: vix sana lectio. 20 dvlorara] Herwerdenus,
dvicravrat libri. 21 mdwris’ Hpoddrov yeyéuevos suspectavit Kruegerus conl.
vy. IO Supra.
778
LETTER TO POMPETUS. 117
Demosthenes. It may be said in general that the poetical
compositions (as I should not shrink from calling them) of
both are beautiful. The chief point of difference is that the
beauty of Herodotus is radiant, that of Thucydides awe-
inspiring. Enough has been said about these historians,
although much more could be said, for which there will be
another opportunity.
IV
Xenophon and Philistus, who flourished at a later time
than these writers, did not resemble one another either in
nature or in principles. Xenophon was an emulator of
Herodotus in both kinds. matter and language. In the first
place, the historical subjects he chose are fine and impressive
and such as befit.a philosopher: the Education of Cyrus, the
portrait of a good and prosperous king; the Eafpedition of the
Younger Cyrus, in which Xenophon, who himself took part in
the campaign, extols so highly the bravery of the Greek
auxiliaries; and also the Greek History, the story which
Thucydides left unfinished, in which are described the over-
throw of ‘the Thirty’ and the restoration of the Athenian
walls razed by the Lacedaemonians. It is not only for his
subjects, chosen in emulation of Herodotus, that Xenophon
deserves commendation, but also for his arrangement of his
material. Everywhere he begins and ends in the most fitting
and appropriate way. His divisions are good, and so is his
order and the variety of his writing. He displays piety,
rectitude, resolution, geniality, in a word all the virtues
which adorn the character. Such is the manner in which
he deals with his subject-matter.
mn
15
20
N
On
118 DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSUS.
‘O d€ NexTiKds 7H pev Opotos “Hpoddrov, 7H dé evde-
€aTepos. Kallapos pev yap Tots dvopacw tikavas Kal
cadns Kabamep exetvos: éxhéyer S€ dvdpata cuvyiy | TE 779
\ A “A / \ 4 > XN c 7
Kal Tpoogun Tols Tpdypact, Kal cuvTiOnow avTa ndéws
, \ / > G2 c / Y \
Tavu Kal Kexaplopevas ovy ATTOVv “Hpoddtov. trfos dé
\ , \ / \ \ / > ,
kal Ka\Nos Kal peyahompéreray Kal TO heydpevoy idiws
Taga iotopikov “Hpddotos ever: ov yap povov ovK
laXvoe TOUTO Tap avTov haBewv, ada Kav ToTE Steyetpat
“~ \ , > / > / 9 > /
BovdynOn tHv dpacww, ddtyov eurvedoas woTrEp aTdyELOS
avpa tayéws oBévyuTal. paKkpoTepos yap ylveTar TOV
d€ovtos €v wo\Xols, Kal TOU TpéTOVTOS OvY ws “HpddoTos
> / A 4 > la =) > > “A 5 4
epamTeTal TOV TPOTwTAV EVTVXaS, aA ev TOAAOLS OX-
ywpos €oTU, av TL dp0as oKo7y.
W/;
Pidiatos d€ OovKvdidyn paddov <av> dd€erev eorxévar
Kal KaT €keivov Koopecofar TOY yapaKTHpa. ovTE yap
trobecw etknde ToAV@PEAH Kal KoWWHV, | woTEP OovKv-
, 5 \ , \ id 4 4 > > ‘
d(6ys |, dda play Kal TavTnVv TomLKHY’ SunpynKe O adTnv
> \ 8 , \ s , \ \ , >
els ypadas dvo, Ilept Xuxedias pev THY TpoTépay em-
, \ 4 de \ ¢ , ¥y be 4
ypadwy, Ilept Avovvotov 0€ THv voTeépav. ETL O€ pia:
‘\ A / x» 5 \ “A , Las = iw /
Kal TOUTO yvolns av amo TOV TéAOUS THS LuKehuKys. TAEW
\ 3 \ / > / “A 4 S \
d€ ov THY KpatioTny aTodédwKe Tots Snhovpevors ada
dvoeTapakorovOnrov, xEetpov THS BovKvdidov. Kal Tpaypya
eEwhev od BovdeTar TaparapBavew, woTep ovd€ OovKv-
d(6ns, GAN e€oTw dpoedys, 706s Te KohaKiKOV Kal didoTv-
pavvov eudaiver kal TaTewov Kal piKpoddoyov. THs dé
/ e / , \ \ na \
hé€ews 7) Oovkvdidyns KéypynTat TO pev onpEr@des Kal
, \
Teplepyov médevyev, TO O€ OTpoyyvAov Kal TUKVOY Kal
7 <olov>‘Hpédor0s <otx> conicit Usenerus. 9g Bovd\né7] Herwerdenus,
BovAnGein libri. I4 ay inseruit Herwerdenus. 16 mo\vwdedk7 mg. M?
mo\v aged M! Pal Bs: corr. Sylburgius. 18 es ypapas] Kruegerus, els
émvypadas libri. 26 76 wev] Sylburgius, 7 wey libri. 27. mwépuxev M Pal,
xépuxe Bs: corr. Sylburgius | ruxvdv epitoma: mexpor libri.
780
LEITER TO POMPETUS. 119
In expression he is partly like Herodotus, partly inferior.
He resembles him in marked purity and lucidity of vocabulary ;
he chooses terms that are familiar and consonant to the theme;
and he puts them together with no less charm and grace than
Herodotus. But Herodotus also possesses elevation and beauty
and stateliness and what is specifically called the ‘historical
vein. Not only was Xenophon powerless to borrow this from
him, but if occasionally he wishes to enliven his style, like a
land-breeze he blows but for a short time and quickly drops.
Indeed, in many passages he is unduly long. So far from
equalling the success of Herodotus in adapting his language
to his characters, he is found on strict examination to be often
careless in this respect.
V
Philistus would seem to resemble Thucydides more nearly
and to have the same general stamp. Like Thucydides, he
has not taken a subject of great utility and public interest,
but a single and local one. He has divided it into two
parts, entitling the former ‘Concerning Sicily,’ the latter
“Concerning Dionysius.’ But the subject is one, as may be
seen from the conclusion of the Sicilian section. He has
not presented his narrative in the best order, but has made
it hard to follow; his arrangement is inferior to that of
Thucydides. No more than Thucydides does he desire
to admit extraneous matter, and he is therefore wanting
in variety. He displays a character which is obsequious,
subservient, mean, and petty. He shuns what is peculiar and
curious in the style of Thucydides, and reproduces what is
120 DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSUS.
> x > , A , | , An
evOumnpaTLKoV EKMEMAKTAL, THS pevTOL Kado Yylas THS 781
€xeivou Kal Tov mAovTOUV Tav evOupynmaTaVv Kal TOAD
c A > / > 5 , > Sy \ \ \
voTeper. ov povoy 8 ev TovTo.s, ada Kal KaTa TOUS
c \
TXNMATLG MOUS’ n eV yap TAHPHs aTYHnMATwV (Kal ovdev
wal
omar mept Tav dhavepov emt mréov Sew héyewv), H Se
Ditiorov hpacis Opoedys Tava Sewas Kal ATX HNMATLOTOS
> \ \ Y x» / c , > na
€oTt’ Kal Todas EvUpot Tis AV TEpLOdoOUS bpolws edeENs
bm avTov cynpatilopévas, oiov ev apyn THs Sevtépas TOV
Tept Sukedias: ‘Svpakdovor d€ taparaBovtes Meyapets
10 Kal “Evvatovs, Kapapwatou d€ Sukehovs Kat Tovs addous
ocuppayous tov Vehowv abpoicarvres, Teh@ou d€ Lupa-
K / > ¥ nN 7 . Vv /, be 0 /,
oclots ovK ehacav TohemHoe: Lvpakocwot de TuVHavo-
r / \ 74 4 / ? la \
pevor Kapapwatovs tov “Tppuvov diaBavras—: radvta de
anon wavy ovta euot daiverar. puKpcos TE Tapa TAcTAaY
> / 3 \ XN > / > 7 / A See,
15 lO€av e€oTl Kal EvTEAHS, av TE TOLOpKias SunyHTaL eay
TE OLKLOLOUS, EAV TE ETALVOUS EaV TE Woryous | SvaTropevnrau. 782
> > > \ A / A“ > lal lal x
GN ovde Tots peyeot TOV avdpav cuvEeEiT@V TOUS
hdyous, ahha Wododects Kal Tovs SynuNnyopovvTas KaTa-
Y
Metre Tas Suvapets Kal TAS TPOaLpETELs OMOlws aTayTas
20 ToLel. eEvoToutay O€ TWa hvoiKnY ElodepeTat KaTa THY
Eppnvelav Kal DUVETW ETLTEVKTLKYY TOU LETPLOV. TPOS
\ \ > \ > los b , /
d€ Tovs adyOwodrs ayavas emiTNdeLdTEpos PovKvdidov.
VI
@cdroutos S€ Xtos emupavéctatos TavTwy <TwV>
‘Iooxpatous pabntav yevopmevos Kat Tohovs pev Tavyyv-
25 plKovs, ToAAOvVs b€ GUBovAEvTLKOUS GUVTAEAPEVOS NOyou
25 plKous, S in S pevos hOyous
> 4 ‘\ \ > fe! \ ¢€ {
€muaTohds Te Tas Xuakas émvypadhopevas Kat varoOnKas
I expéuaxtac] Kruegerus, wéucxrac libri. 2 kal modd] Us, xara moNd libri.
3 6 év} Holwellus, 6é libri. g otxedav M Pal B: corr. s. I4 Tapa
M: rept Pal Bs. 15 kal dreds libri: corr. Boissonadius. 23. «TOV
inseruit Herwerdenus. 26 Xaxas] Us, adxaicas M Pal B, dpxaixas s |
émiypapouevas MB: ypagopuévas Pal s.
LETTER TO POMPELUS. 121
rounded and terse and enthymematic. He falls, however, very
far behind the beauty of language and the wealth of enthy-
memes found in Thucydides. And not only in these respects
is he inferior, but also in his composition. The style of Thucy-
dides is full of variety, a fact which is so obvious that I
consider it needs no further demonstration. But the language
of Philistus is exceedingly uniform and lacking in variety.
Many successive sentences will be found to be constructed
by him in the same way. For example, at the beginning of
the Second Book of his Sicilian History: ‘The Syracusans
having associated with themselves the Megarians and En-
naeans, and the Camarinaeans having mustered the Sicels
and the rest of the allies except the Geloans (now the
Geloans said that they would not wage war against the
Syracusans); and the Syracusans learning that the Camari-
naeans had crossed the Hyrminus...... Pca ethisuis sto) ate
obviously most displeasing. He is trivial and common-
place whatever his subject may be, whether he describes
sieges or settlements, whether he deals in eulogium or in
censure. Moreover, he does not write speeches worthy
of the greatness of the speakers, but he makes even his
parliamentary orators, one and all, abandon in a panic alike
their faculties and their principles. He possesses, however, a
sort of natural euphony of style and a well-balanced judgment.
Aad he is a better model for actual pleadings than Thucy-
dides.
VI
Theopompus of Chios was the most celebrated of all the
disciples of Isocrates. He composed many panegyrics and
many deliberative speeches, as well as the ‘Chian’ Letters
1 Philistus, fragm. 8 (Fragm. Hist. Graec. p. 186).
I
20
to
wat
Oo
122 DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSUS.
¥ / > / ¢ / , ¥
a\\as oyou akias, toTopiav TeTpaypywatevpevos a&vos
erawetrbar mpaTov pev THS vTolécEws THY LOTOpLOV
f \ \ , , c \ \ \ ~ |
(kahat yap auotepat, pev Ta Nowra Tov Iledozrovyn-
OlLaKOv TOhELOV TEPLEXOUTA, 7 SETA Diiit7T]H TETpaypLEVva),
ETELTA THS OlKOVOLLAS (auPoTEepar yap ELowW EvTTAapaKoNov-
Onto. Kai cadets), partiota dé THs emysehelas TE Kal
ditotovias THS KaTa THY avyypadyv: SHos yap eT”,
el Kal poder eypawe, TAELOTHY eV TapacKEVHV Els TAUTA
TaperKevagpevos, peylotas d€ damavas els THY oUVA-
yoyny avTav TETEEKGS, Kal TPOS TOUTOLS TOAN@V MEV AUTO-
, A > > ¢ 7 > SS > 4
TTNS yeyernpevos, Toddots O Eis Opidtiav ehOwv avdpacr
TOls TOTE TPWTEVOVGL Kal OTPaTHYyols Snpmaywyots TE Kat
/ Ni ‘\ 4 > ‘\ 9 \
diiocddos dia THY Gvyypadyv: ov yap womEp TwWeES
Tapepyov Tov Blov THY avaypadyy THS LaTOPLas ETOLnT-aTO,
epyov 6€ TO TavTwY avayKaoTaTov. ‘yvoln o ay Tis avTov
‘\ / > \ XN 4 lo lal \
Tov tovov evOupnlets TO Todkvpopdhov THs ypadys: Kat
‘ > A ¥ > \ \ / / > ,
yap Ovav eipyKer olka pmovs Kal TOME@Y KTLO-ELS ETEAH AEE,
/ td \ / > / ie ‘\
Baortéwv te Biovs Kal TpdTav idiwHpata Sedyhoke, Kal
| y» \ x /, ¢ /, “A ‘\ ,
el Tt Oavpacrov 7 mapadofov ExaoTn yn Kat Oaracoa
/ nw \ \
peper, Tuptrepiethnpev TH Tpaypatela. Kat poets vUr0-
haByn Wuyaywylay tavT elvar povov: ov yap ovUTwS EXEL,
5 \ ~ ¢ ¥ > “A > / 4
ahha Tacav ws Eros elmew waéeevav TEpLEXet.
, \ , > b) a > i? b) € , A
Iva d5€ ravtT af Tddda, Tis OvY OportoyynaeEL Tots
>} A \ 4 c ‘\ > las > ‘\
aokKovaL THY Piiocodov pytopiKyY avayKatov eivat Toa
pev €On Kat BapBapewv kat “EX\yqvwv expabetv, tohdovs
d€ vopxovs akovoat TohiTEL@v TE OYHpaTAa, Kat Bious
avopav Kal Tpakes Kal TEAN Kal TUXAaS ; TOUVTOLS TOLVUY
avacav apboviay SédaKev ovK aTETTATHEVHY TOV Tpay-
patwv adda oupTapovoav. mavta de Tavta (yhwra Tod
I délas, icropiav] Us, agiav ioropiay libri. 15 dvayka.bratov] Sylburgius,
avayKka.orepoy libri. 20 ocupmepeiAngpev ev libri: év dittographia natum delevit
Herwerdenus. 22 madoav] Herwerdenus, ra@ow libri. 24 doxovor] Holwellus,
akovovet libri. 25 €6n] Holwellus, v7 libri. 28 amacay] Herwerdenus,
aracw libri.
783
784
LETTER TO POMPEIUS. 123
and some noteworthy treatises. As a student of history he
deserves praise on several grounds. His historical subjects
are both good, one of them embracing the conclusion of the
Peloponnesian War, the other the career of Philip. His
arrangement, also, is good, being in both cases lucid and easy
to follow. Especially admirable are the care and industry
which mark his historical writing, for it is clear, even if he
had said nothing to that effect, that he prepared himself
most fully for his task and incurred heavy expense in the
collection of his material. Moreover, he was an eye-witness
of many events, and came in contact with many leading men
and generals of his day, whether popular leaders or more
cultivated persons. All this he did in order to improve his
History. For he did not (as some do) consider the recording
of his researches as a pastime, but as the one thing needful
in life. The trouble he took may be inferred from the com-
prehensiveness of his work. He has related the foundation of
nations, described the establishment of cities, portrayed royal
lives and peculiar customs, and incorporated in his work
everything wonderful or strange found on any land or sea.
Nor must it be supposed that this is merely a form of enter-
tainment. It is not so. Such particulars are, it may in
general be said, of the greatest utility.
In fine, who will not admit that it is necessary for the
votaries of philosophic rhetoric to study the various customs
both of foreigners and of Greeks, to hear about various
laws and forms of government, the lives of men and their
actions, their deaths and fortunes? For such votaries he has
provided material in all plenty, not divorced from the events
narrated, but in close connexion with them. All these
qualities of the historian are worthy of admiration. The
un
Io
20
Ny
un
124 DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSUS.
, \ ¥ ‘\ , 9 a >
ovyypadews, Kal ETL TPOS TOVTOLS Oca Piiocodel Tap
9 \ \ ‘\ , \ > ,
Ohynv THY <ovyypadyy Tept> Sixatocvryyns Kal evoeBelas
\ ~ yy > ca \ 4, AN /
Kal TOV ahhwv apeTav ToAAOVs Kal Kaovs SreEepyopevos
Noyous. TelevTatoy €oTL TOV Epywv av’TOV Kal yapaKTn-
pixdétatov, 0 Tap ovdevt TaV ahov ovylypapewv ovTas 785
5 “~ ¢ , \ 5 “~ »y “~ 4,
akpiBas efeipyaotat Kat duvaT@s ovTE TOV mpeo Butépwv
OUTE TOV VEwWTEpwV" TL O€ TOUTO é€oTL; TO Kal? EKAOTHV
nm \ , \ \ nw -~ c ~ \ ,
Tmpagw pn movov Ta pavepa Tos ToAAOLs Opav Kat héyew,
5 > << , >, \ , a“ > 4 lal / LY
aX’ e€eralew Kat Tas apavets aitias Tov mpakewv Kal
col , > \ \ \ , ~ a aA \ Ce,
Tov TpakavT@v avtas Kal TA TAIN THS Wuyns, a by pasa
Tots 7oAXols ElO€vat, Kat TavTa exKadvaTew TA PLUoTH PLA
TS TE doKovons apeTHS Kal THS ayvoovperns Kaklas.
Kat por SoKet Tws 6 pvbevdpevos ev “AvOov ToY uyor
aTo\vbevoav Tov o@patos E€eTAT LOS ETL TOV EKEL OLKATTOV
Y > \ > c c \ A ~ , A
ovTws akpiByns evar ws oO dua THS Peomoptrov ypapns
, 5 \ \ , “8 Ss
ylyVOpEvos. Lo Kal BaoKavos edo€ev eivat, Tpoohap.-
Bavev tots aVvayKaloLs TWa OVELOLT [LOLS KATA TOV EvOOoEwV
TpOTWTWV OUK avaykKala TpaywaTa, OMoLoV TL TrOL@V
TOls LaTpots, OL TE“VOVGL KaL KaloVcL TA diebfappeva TOU
4 Y / \ id \ X X Er
cwpatos ews Baflous Ta KAUTYH PLA Kal TAS TOMAS PEpoVTEs,
ovoeVv TOV VY LaLVOVT OV Kal Kata dvow | EXOVT@V OTOXA-
Copevor. Tovovtos pev Oy Tis 6 TpaypaTiKos coTropTrOV
XapakTnp.
c
O 6€ XeKTLKOs ‘lookparet padtota eoxe. Kablapa Te
Y) \
yap 7 é€ts Kal Kowy Kat cans, vin) Te Kat peyado-
TpeTNS Kal TO TouTLKOV ExovTa TOV, TUyKEEerN TE
KATA THY peony apjLoviar, nd€ws Kal padaKkas peovoa.
8 , \ na > , \ \ / x
vahharrer Oe Ts Iooxpatelov Kata THY TLKpOTHTA Kat
2 auyypapny (icropiay Sylb.) mepi add. Usenerus | dcxatootvnv kai edoéBecav
libri: corr. Sylburgius. 6 kal dtvara libri: corr. Holwellus. 13 ws]
Us, ws libri | év”Avdov] A. Schaeferus, efvac libri. 16, 17 mpochauBavev
MB: mpodauBavev Pal s | rots dvayxalois twa M: twa Tots dvayxatos Pal Bs.
xara] Reiskius, kal ra libri. 20 éws MB!: ws Pals mg B. 21 ovder
MB: ovdé Pals. 24 Kadapa re MB: xaéapa Pals.
786
LETTER TO POMPEIUS. 125
same may be said of the philosophical reflections scattered
throughout his History, for he has many fine observations
on justice, piety, and the rest of the virtues. There remains
his crowning and most characteristic quality, one which is
found developed with equal care and effect in no other
writer, whether of the older or the younger generation. And
what is this quality? It is the gift of seeing and stating
in each case not only what is obvious to the multitude,
but of examining even the hidden motives of actions and
actors and the feelings of the soul (things not easily discerned
by the crowd), and of laying bare all the mysteries of seem-
ing virtue and undiscovered vice. Indeed, I can well be-
lieve that the fabled examination, before the judges in the
other world, of souls in Hades when separated from the body
is of the same searching kind as that which is conducted by
means of the writings of Theopompus. In consequence he
was thought malicious on the ground that, where reproaches
against distinguished persons were necessary, he added un-
necessary details ; while in truth he acted like surgeons who
cut and cauterize the morbid parts of the system, carrying
their operations far down, and yet in no way assailing the
healthy and normal organs. Such is an account of the way
in which Theopompus deals with his subject-matter.
In style he is most like to Isocrates. His diction is pure,
familiar and clear; it is elevated, grand, and full of stateli-
ness; it is formed according to the middle “armony, having
a pleasant and easy flow. It differs from that of Isocrates
in pungency and energy in some passages, when he gives free
10
15
20
126 DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSUS.
XN / > > > , 4 > / lay , ,
TOV TOVvoV eT Eviwv, OTaV emiTpey Tots TADECL, padioTa
>, ¢ > , / x a \ ,
orav dverdiln TOET WW 7) OTpaTHyots TorNpAa BovrevpaTa
Kal mpates adiKkovs: Tohds yap ev TovTo.s, Kal THs
, / > \ \ \ / c
Anpoobevous SewodrtynTos ode Kata pLKpoV SiadepEL, ws
= ¥ aC y »¥ nw — al an
€€ a\\ov To\@v av Tis Oot KaK TOV Xiak@v eTLTTOOaD,
a ~ / 7 > 4 4 > >
as TO <ouphivT@> Trevpate emiTpeas yeypader. et 8
A > @ > A
Urepeidey Ev TovTOLS Ef ols padioTa avTETTOVOAKE THS
TE TuuTAOKNHS TOV horneTav ypapypdatev | Kal THS Kv-
Kdikyns evpvouias Tav TEpiddwv Kal THS OpoEdEias TOV
a \ PN Ss lal
TXNMATLTLAV, TOV apEelvwY av HY aU’TOS EaUTOV KATA
mv pbpacw.
yan NeA \ \ N \ , c ,
Kore 6€ & Kal KaTa TOV Tpay_aTLKOY TOTOV apapTavel,
\ / ‘\ \ / O A \ ’ A 4
Kal pahloTa KaTa Tas TapEeuBoas’ OVTE yap avayKatat
> a VFS 33 Co / \ \ \ “A
TWES AUT@V OUT EV KaLpH yevopmevat, TOY SE TO TrALOL@dES
> ‘4 ‘ > e > \ \ \ s lal lal ,
euhatvovaoar’ ev ois EoTL KaL TA TEPL SLANVOV TOV PavEevTos
> , / X XN Ni lal 4 “A ,
ev Makedovia Kal Ta TEpl TOV SpaKovTos TOV Siavavpayy-
> > 4
TAVTOS TPOs THY TPLnPH Kat adda TOUTOLS OVK OALya opOLG.
Otro. Tapalynpbertes ot cvyypadets apKkécovar Tots
~A \ /
aokKOVGL TOV ToLTLKOY Adyov ahoppas ETUTNOELOUS TApa-
A Y
detypdtwv Tapacyew eis atacay idéar.
5 Xuaxov] Us, axarxkGv M Pal B apyaixay s. 6 cvudtrw ante mvevmare in-
seruit Usenerus: lacunam ix vel x litterarum M, v vel vi litterarum indicat B,
nullam Pal s. 7 avrTecrovdaxe] av éorovdake libri. 13 mapeuBodds]
Kiesslingius, rapafonds libri. 15 otdnvod M Pal B: DeAnvois. 18 ovror]
Holwellus, rov’rocs libri.
787
LETTER TO POMPETUS. 127
play to his emotions, and particularly when he taxes cities
or generals with evil counsels and unjust actions. In such
criticisms he abounds, and he falls not one whit behind the in-
tensity of Demosthenes, as may be seen from many other
writings and from his Chzan Letters, in composing which he
has obeyed his native instincts. If in the passages on which
he has bestowed the greatest pains, he had paid less attention
to the blending of vowels, the measured cadence of periods,
and the uniformity of constructions, he would have far sur-
passed himself in expression.
He is also guilty of errors in the sphere of subject-matter,
and particularly in regard to his digressions, some of which
are neither necessary nor opportune, but childish in the
extreme. An instance is the story of the Silenus who
appeared in Macedonia, and that of the fight between the
serpent and the galley, and not a few other things of the
kind.
The study of these historians will suffice to furnish to
those who practise civil oratory a suitable fund of examples
for every variety of style. .
DIONYSII HALICARNASSENSIS
PiastULA AD AMMAEUM II
AIONYSIO¥Y ANIKAPNAS EW
HEP! TQN OCOYKYAIAOY IAIQVAOIN
AIONTSIOS; AMMAIO[ TOI ®IATATOI XAIPEIN
I
"Eyo pev vTedapBavov apKovvTws dSedy\oxevar Tov
5 Qovkvdidov yapakTnpa, Ta péyloTa Kal KUpLdTaTa TOV
¢ / ‘\ > XN > , > 4 > ae
UrapxXovTwv epi avTov idiwwpatav ereEeMMav, ev ois ye
‘\ / / A 7 “ N > ~ e /
6) partora diah€épew edo€ev por THV TPO avTOD pHTOpwV
TE Kal Ovyypadéwv, TpoTEpov pev ev Tots TeEpt | TOV
ApXalwv PHTOpwVv Tmpos TO Gov ovowa ouvTayHEtow UTo-
10 PVUNPaTLa}LOLs, OALyous Oe Tpoabev ypovors év ™ Tept
avTOU TOV MovKvdloov KkatacKevacbeon ypapy TporeTav
\ Atr T Bé > > / \ 5 / do \
Tov Avwov TovBépwva, €v 7 TavTa Ta dedpmeva NOyou pera
TaV oikelwy amodeiEewy SieEeAH\vOa Kata THY €“avTOD
4 ~ \ ¢ / e > lo Q\
dvvapw: cov dé VrohapPavovtos HrTov HKpLYBaCOaL Tas
, 5) \ / 4 \ /
15 ypadds, e€meion mpoekOemevos aravta ta oupPeByKoTra
T® YAapakTHpL TOTE TAS TEPL avT@Y TioTELS Tapexopat,
axpiBeatépay S€ THY Sjhoow Tawv idiwpadtwy Tov yapa-
nA y \ lal
KTHpos execbar voptCov7os, el Tapa play ExaoTHnY TOV
6 evots P. 9g mpoarécov P | cuvteraxfeiow P. to. 66é] H. Stephanus,
67 PGCD. Il mpoce:moy P: w superscr: m. rec. 12 Tov Bépwva PD.
evne P: sic plerumque. 13 amodéwv P: e& superscr. m. rec. é€uauTov G:
a’rot PCD. 16 [mlor]ecs cum rasurae vestigiis P.
788 R
789
Pate OE DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSUS
BOneCERNING THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE
PANGUAGE OF THUCYDIDES:
DIONYSIUS TO HIS FRIEND AMMAEUS
WITH GREETINGS.
I thought I had sufficiently indicated the characteristics
of Thucydides when describing the most important and
remarkable of those peculiarities which seemed to me to
distinguish him from all previous orators and_ historians.
I have, in fact, previously treated the subject in the essays,
inscribed with your name, on the Axcient Orators, and a little
time before in the treatise on Thucydides himself which I
addressed to Aelius Tubero, in which I have, to the best
of my ability, gone into all the points needing discussion, and
have added suitable illustrations. But your view is that these
writings lack precision, in that I do not give the proofs till
I have specified the characteristics. You think that the
exposition of characteristic peculiarities would gain in pre-
cision if, side by side with each single statement, I were to
Q—2
132 DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSUS.
, \ / A 4 , a ¢
mpolécewy Tas é€ers TOV cvyypadéws Tapatileinv, 6 ot
TAS TEYVaS Kal Tas EiDaywyas TOV NOywY TpayLaTEVOmEVOL
Tova, TpoEdopevos eis pydev eAdElTELW Kal TOUTO
, ‘\ X\ La \ > \ A >
TeToInKa, TO SidacKkadiKov oynpa haBwv avTi Tov emt-
5 SELKTLKOU.
I]
9 de > , € / s ‘
| Iva 0€ evTrapaKohovytos 0 Noyos wou yevynTat, mpolets 790
\ , tJ XA an
kata héEw doa Tept TOV cvyypadéws Tvyydve Tpoeipy-
/ > / > “A 4,
KOS, ETLTpoXddynY avaryopat Tav mpolécewy ExaoTHv
\ ‘\ > 8 / t} 4 > , 9
KaL TAS ATO ei €eus Trapecopar, Kabarep n Etovs. EMT ETAL
\ “” x ¢ / a \ lal
10 O€ Tots TEpt Hpoddrov ypadetow Ta wédANovTA Snrovo Oat.
‘\ 4 lal \ aA yy
TovTw yap BovkvdlOns Tw avdpi em-Baov Kai Tots addots
me / > , \ \ a Y a
@V 7 POTEPOV envio Ony, KQL TUVLOWV aS €KAOTOS QUTOV
yy > , » / , lo yy ‘\
EO KEV apEeTas, LOLOV Tl yevos XA2P4ZKTY POS, OUTE meClov
la YS) 2 y, ‘\ \
AUVTOTEAWS OUT EMpETPOV aTNnpTLOpLevws, KoLWOV O€ TL Kal
‘\ > > “ > - > N ¢€ \
15 puKTOV e€€ apo eEpyacdapevos els THY LOTOPLKHY TpayyLa-
nw \ \ nw Cal nw
Telav €oTrovoacev eioayayel’ emi pev THS ekhoyns TOV
/ \ \ ‘\ S \
OVOMATWV THV TPOTLKYVY KAL YAWTTYNMATLKNV KAL ATNPXALw-
XN 4 4 \ “A
pevnv Kat Eevynv héEw traparapBavwv Todds avTt THS
A \ , lal eae S > 7 SEN \
Kowns Kat cuvyifous Tots Kal’ éEavTov avOpamors, emi dé
20TOV OYNpATLTPaV, Ev ols pariota EBouvhHOy SieveyKetv
~ A ~ / > , ,
TOV TPO avTov, TELOTHVY ELOEVEYKAapEVOS TPAyLaTELav,
1 mpobécewy] Reiskius, rapabécewy PGCD. 7 bcarep Tou P. g glow
PGCD: corr. Sylburgius. 11 verba quae sequuntur ex commentario
de Thucydide (A) c. xxiv sublata sunt | rodrw dé 6) Tw avdpi Oouxvdtdys émiBadwy A.
12 [v mpd]repoy cum liturae vestigiis P | cuverday P. Lo umLOLoyeerene 15 eis}
ididy Twa XapakThpa Kal Tapewpaévoy amace mpOros eis A, 15 puxtov CDs:
puxpov PG. 16 ayayeiv A. 18 mapahauBdavwy modddxkts| mpoedduevos A.
1g Tots GCs: tho PD. kar avbrov A | éml dé] émi 6¢ rHs cvvOécews TOY
T é\atTévey Kal TWY peLfovwY oplwY Thy a&wuaTiny Kal avornpay Kal oTLBapay Kai
BeBnxviay kal rpaxvvoucar Tals Tay ypayparwv avrituTlas Tas aKoas avTl THs Avyupas
Kal padakys Kal cuvececuévns Kal undev exovons avtitumov: éml 6é A. 20 madnoTa
P | dcevéyxar A. 21 avrov P, a’rov GCD: corr. Kruegerus. mpayuarelay |
amovdn. dueré\ecé yé ToL Tov éEmTaKaLetKoTaETH Xpdvov ToD moNEMou amo THS apxAs
éws THs TeAeuTHS Tas OKTW PUBouS, as wdvas KaTéduTEV, oTpépav divw Kal KdTw, Kal
Kad’ év Exacrov Tav THs ppdcews popliwy pwwy Kal Topebwy* Kal A.
SECOND LETTER TO AMMAEUS. 133
set down the expressions of the historian, as is the practice
of the authors of rhetorical handbooks and introductions to
the art of composition. Desiring, therefore, to meet every
criticism, I have taken this course, and have followed the
didactic method in place of the epideictic.
II
In order that the argument may be easy for you to follow,
I will first quote word for word what I have previously said
with regard to the historian, and will then cursorily review each
several proposition, and will supply the illustrations as you
desire. The passage about to be cited follows the remarks
on Herodotus. ‘Coming after Herodotus and the authors
previously mentioned, and taking a comprehensive view of
their several excellences, Thucydides aspired to form and to
introduce into historical composition an individual manner
of his own, one which was neither absolute prose nor down-
right metre, but something compounded of the two. In the
choice of words he often adopts a figurative, obscure, archaic
and strange diction, in place of that which was in common
use and familiar to the men of his day. He takes the
greatest trouble to vary his constructions, since it was in this
respect chiefly that he wished to excel his predecessors. At
134 DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSUS.
\ \ / > > / ” \ \ > y¥
tore | pev Aoyov €€ d6vdpatos Towwy, ToTé Sé els Gvopa 791
»\ a “~
ouvayev TOV NOyov: Kal VOY eV TO PHLATLKOV GVOMATLKOS
, “y \ ¥ A “a \ lal
exdhepwv, avfis 5€ Tovvowa pHnywa ToLwy: Kal avTaV ye
TOUTwWY avacTpepwV TAS KPHTELS, Wa TO MEY GVOMATLKOV
in
<Tpoonyopikov yevnTar, TO O€ TPT HYyoOpLKoV 6vopLaTLKa@S>
héynTar, Kat Ta pev TaOyTiKa pypata Spactypia, Ta de
, / las \ Nee lay =) ,
Spactypia Tabytika: mynOuvtixov Sێ Kal EviK@v addarT-
\ , MV ‘oa “~ > / /,
TOV TAS PUTELS Kal AVTLKATHYOPaV TAUTA adAnAwY, OnuKa
T appevikots Kal apperika OnhuKots Kal ovdéTEpa TOVT@V
‘\ / 3 e ¢ \ i? > / lal
10 TIO GUVaTTOV, €€ @V 1 KaTAa Piow aKodoviia TaVaTaL’
Tas O€ <T@V> OVOMATLKOV 7) LETOXLKOV TT@OELS TOTE [LEV
TPOS TO THPLALVOMLEVOY ATO TOV ONMALVOYTOS aTroaTpEhwr,
ToTe O€ TpOs TO <ONpAlvoY aro TOU> THpaLWopevou’ ev
d€ Tots auvdeTiKOls Kal TOIs TpoHeTLKOLS poplots Kal ETL
15 padNov ev Tots StapOpovor Tas TaV dvopatwv Suva\pers 792
Tontov TpoTov eveEovoidlwv. mhetata 8 av Tis Evpor
TAP AVT@ TOV OXHPATOV, THOTeOTwY TE ATOTTpOals Kal
ypovev eval\ayats Kal TOTLKOV THNMLELWOTEWY jLETaAbopats
e€n\\aypeva Kat codotkicpav apPavovta havtacias:
20070Ga TE YiVEeTaL TpaypaTa avTL TopaTav 7} Topara
avTl Tpaypdtov, kai ed wv evOvpnuatav TE Kal VonpaTwY
at peTagv TapeuTT@oers Tohat yuwopevar dud paKpovd
\ 5 , 4 4 \ \ 4
Tv akodoviiay KopilovTa, TA TE TKOALA Kal TOAVTAOKA
\ / \ ‘\ MA \ ~ 4 4
Kal dvoe€€AKTa Kal TA aha TA TVyyEVH TOUTOLS. EVpOL
> A > > / \ lo) a / ,
250 av Ts OUK OAtya Kal TaV DeaTpLKaV OXNPATWVY KELLEVa
Teeeasicuiy 4 lva 7d prev dvomarixoy NéynTac PG, tva 76 wév GvomariKoV
pnuatikév, TO 6€ pnuatikdy dvomarixoy Néynrac CDs: tu vide A p. 867 extr. R.
7 évadddrrwv A. 8 éyxarnyopay A. Q dpevixois P, apoevtxots ADs | dppencka
A: dppeva PGCD. 9, 10 TovTwy Tislv corr. P1, rovTwy oly pr. P!. Ir 6€
Tav A: 6é PGCD. more A. 13 more A| pds 7d onuatvoy ard Tob
onuawouevov ACDs: mpods 76 onuawomuevov PG, 15 dvoudtwy A: vonuaTwv
PGED: 16 étpo. P, om. A. 17 Tov oxnudtwv] oxjuara A | aroarpod[at|s
cum rasura P. 18 dtadopais A. 19 é&ayueva Tov cwv7bwv Kai A.
20 Oméca Te ylyvera A: amocréyew 4 Ta PGCD: corr. Reiskius. 21 Te kal
vonudtwy om. A. 22 paxpov] modXov A. 24,25 ێ0po 6 av P.
SECOND LETTER TO AMMAEUS. 135
one time he makes a phrase out of a word, at another time
he condenses a phrase into a word. Now he gives a nominal
in place of a verbal form, and again he converts a noun into
a verb. He inverts the ordinary use of nouns and verbs
themselves, interchanging common with proper nouns and
active with passive. verbs. He varies the normal use of the
plural and the singular number, and predicates the one in
place of the other. He combines feminines with masculines,
masculines with feminines, and neuters with the other genders;
and the natural agreement of gender is violated thereby. He
wrests the cases of nouns or participles at times from the
expression to the sense, at other times from the sense to
the expression.. In the employment of conjunctions and
prepositions, and especially of the particles which serve to
bring out the meanings of individual words, he allows himself
full poetic liberty. There will be found in him a large number
of constructions which by changes of person and variations
of tense, and by the strained use of expressions denoting
piace, differ from ordinary speech and have all the appear-
ance of solecisms. Further, he frequently substitutes things
for persons and persons for things. In his enthymemes and
his sentences the numerous parentheses .often delay the con-
clusion for a long time, while there is much in him that is
tortuous, involved, perplexed, and similarly defective. More-
over, not a few of the showy figures will be found to be
10
15
20
136 DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSUS.
Tap avT@, Tas Tapirwces héyw Kal TapopLoLlwoeEls Kat
Tapovomactas Kal av7léoes, ev ais emeovace Topyias
c lanl \ c \ “A \ , \ A
© AeovTivos Kat ot Tept Ilwdov Kat Atkvpviov Kat ToXOL
¥ wn > > \ ) , > / A =) Les
a\\ou TOV KAT aVTOV akpacavTav. eKkdndoTaTa S€ avTOv
nw 4
KAl YAPAKTHPLKOTATA ETL TO TE Teipao Oar ov eLayloTov
dvomatov TetaTa oOnpaive | Tpdypata Kal ToAAG oUV-
tTU€var vonpata els Ev Kal ETL Tpoordexopmevov TL TOV
> \ > , A c > « > \ ?
akpoaTynv akovoecOar Katahimretv, Vp av acades yiveTat
A , Y AN A 4 4 4 >
To Bpaxyv. wa d€ cuvedov Elta, Tésoapa pey exTW
Y »” ~ , , \ ‘\ A
WOTEP Opyava TS @ovKvdldov héEews, TO ToLNTLKOV TOV
6VvOLaTwY, TO TOAVELOes TOV TXNMATWV, TO TPaXU TNS
appovias, TO TAXOS THS ONMaTias’ ypomaTa d€ avrns TO
A
TE OTPLPVOV Kal TO TLKPOV Kal TO TUKVOV KL TO avoTnpov
\ ‘ 5 7 A \ \ \ , c ‘ 4
Kat TO eupiblés Kai TO Sewov Kal poBepov, UmEp atravTa
a nw \ \ \ /
d€ avTov TadtTa TO TaOnTLKOY. ToLovTOat peEV Oy Tis EoTLV
5 e ss \ \ A NEE ao ie \
JovKvdldns Kata Tov THS héeEews YapaKTyHpa, w@ Tapa
Tovs ah\ous SunveyKer.
ng
| a ‘ ,
Piwoconpatika pev obv Kai amnpyatopeva Kat ducret-
A la ‘\ ¢
KaoTa TOS TOANOLS EoTL TO TE AKpaLtPVes Kal O ETL-
\ 7 \ ‘\
Aoytopos Kat TEpLwTyH Kal 7 | avakwXH Kal Ta
YY \ e
OMOLA TOVTOLS. ToLNTLKA O€ H TE KWAVUN Kal N TPE-
\ c 4 \ c > , XS c
aoBevo.s kai » KataBon Kat 7 ayOndev Kat 7
dukalwols Kal Ta TapamdAyoua.
A A“ ,
n © €v Tots TYNMATLApLOLS KaLVOTNS TE KAL TOAVTpOTA
\ c 5) \ a , , > e ,
kal 7 e€addayn THS TuvyAOovs xpjoews, EV y padioTa
I kal mapomowwcers om. A. 4 €exkdndr\wrara P. 5 Xapaxrypiorikwrara
CDs | éor P. 7 eis €v ex A Reiskius: efs a PGCD. 8 axovoerOat
CDsA: axovecbat PG | bpar P. 12 THs onuacias| Tov oxnudTwy A corruptum
ut videtur ex Tay onuwacwwr. 13. 70 wuKvov Kai TO mexpov ordine inverso A.
14 kal 70 PoPepor A. 15 avrov om. A | To.otros A. 19, 20 €mtoyiomds
PCD, mapadroyiopues G, mepidoyiopuos s: fort. émndvrns. 21, 22 mpecBev es P,
mpéaBevors GCD. 22 KataBon] Sylburgius, karaBoryn PGCD. 24 Tel
dé Pa.
793
794
SECOND LETTER TO AMMAEUS. 137
employed by him,—I mean those fartsoses, faromoeoses,
paronomasiae and antitheses, which are so lavishly used by
Gorgias of Leontini, by the school of Polus and Licymnius,
and by many others who flourished in his time. The most
obvious of his characteristics is the attempt to indicate as
many things as possible in as few words as possible, to
combine many ideas in one, and to leave the listener
expecting to hear something more. The consequence is
that brevity becomes obscurity. In fine, there are four
“instruments,” so to say, of the style of Thucydides,—the
artificial character of the vocabulary, the variety of the
constructions, the roughness of the harmony, the speed of the
narrative. Its “colours” are solidity, pungency, condensation,
austerity, gravity, terrible vehemence, and above all his
power of stirring the emotions. Such is Thucydides in re-
spect of those characteristics of his style which distinguish
him from all other writers!’
II!
Examples of expressions which are obscure, and archaic,
and puzzling to ordinary people are: To axpadvés, 6 érre-
NOYyLT “LOS, 7 TEpLwTn, 7) avakwyy, and so forth. Of artificial
words instances are: 7 kw@AUuy, 7 TpégBevets, 7 KaTaBon,
7 axOnédov, 7 StKaiwors, and so on.
His novelty and variety in his constructions, and his
departure from established usage, which we consider to be
1 Dionys. Hal. de Thucyd. cc. 24, 25.
138 DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSUS.
/ > \ c 4 “~ ¥ 3 \ 4 ,
Siadepew av7ov yyovpeba Tov adda, Et TOVTWY ylyveTat
TOV Epywr avepa’
IV
9 \ > , So ¥ > \ ¥ c ‘\
oTav pev ovy ptav h€Ew ELTE OVOLATLKNV ELTE PNLATLKHV
ev TAEOTW OVOLacW 7) pHuacw eKhé dpalwv 77
vopacw 7} pyyacw exdepyn Tepippalwrv THY
> ‘\ / ~ ‘\ Ss s\
5QUTHY VvOnoW, ToLav’TnY ToLvee THY héeEw' ‘HV yap Oo
OeurotoKys BeBaorata 57) hvcews ioydv Snrooas Kai
8 / =) TaN A (J 2 A , ’
vahepovTws TL €s avTO paddov Eré€pov a&.os Oavpaca.
‘ ‘\ > ~ 3 , / ¢ 0 > ‘ 7
Kal PHY Ev TH ETLTApiw yéypadev ‘ovd avd Kata TeEViar,
¥ 8 , > \ “A \ “ 5 7 > 4
exov 0€ 7 ayaboy Spaca THY Tow, aELopaTos adaveta
10 KEK@AUTAL. Kal yap ev | ToUTOLS TO ONMaLVOpmEVvoV*™ TroLEt 795
XN / “A c SEEN A 7 / ,
Tov hoyov ToLovTOY, ws em TOV Aakedatpoviov Bpacida Teé-
Onkev, OTE wayopevos TeEpt IIvAov aro THS VewS TpavpaTias
, Es Jar , \ > A? Van oboe \
yevopmevos ebérecev’ ‘mecovtos b€ avtov’ dyotv ‘eis THY
2 cas \ , ) , \ PaaS
Tapeeiperiav n aomis Tepieppvn. BovdeTar yap dnhovv
15 ‘TETOVTOS O€ a’TOV E€w THS VEews ETL TA TPOeXoVTA pep
Lal > / ) > 4
THS eipectas’ [eis Oadarrar |,
V
"Ev ots 6€ Ta pyyatika popia THS hé€ews dvopmaTLKas
oxnpatiler, TovavTyv Tovet THY ppdow' eoTw O€ avT@
mpos “AOnvaiovs 6 Kopivios ev th tpétn BUBA\w Tade
20 héywv: ‘Sikaidpata pev ovv Tdde TpPds Vas Eexoper,
Tapaiveow d€ Kal a€iwow xapitos Toidvde. TO yap
TApalvEely Kal GELOVY pHpata OvTa oVvOmaTika yeyovey
/ \ > , , > \ A > / 4
TAPALWEDLS KQL a€lwots. TAUTNS E€OTL TNS ideas i]
> > 4 w~ DN / ce > “ 6
TE OVK ATOTELVYLOLS TOV | IlAnppuvptov n ev 7H79
4 €umdeloow P, 7 7 és aro Gs, Tio cau TOP, tis avrov D, Ttx adrov C.
Gavyaca P. Io verba nonnulla hic deesse videntur. I2 vedas P.
13 meadvros 6€] Kal mecovTos O. 14 mepteppine’ P. I5 meoovTos}
Us, 76 dvros PGCD. 16 els @4\array tanquam glossema supplendis
Thucydidis verbis v. 14 adscriptum seclusit Usenerus. 17 dvou“aTiKes
P, dvopatixas Cs. 20 exouev] €xouev ixava Kkard Tos EXNjvwr vouous O.
22 dvopatika PG: dvouatikws C, dvouacrikws D. 24 7 P: qv GCDs.
SECOND LETTER TO AMMAEUS. 139
the chief point of difference between him and all other
writers, may be illustrated by the following instances.
IV
When he amplifies a single idea and uses a number of
nouns or verbs in place of one nominal or verbal expression,
he expresses~ himself thus: ‘Themistocles exhibited his
natural force in the most convincing way, and in this respect
he was especially worthy of admiration beyond any rival*.’
Again, in the Funeral Speech he writes: ‘nor yet on the
score of poverty is a man who has it in his power to
confer a service on the state debarred through the obscurity
of his rank*.’ For in these cases the sense** He expresses
himself as in his description of the Spartan Brasidas when
in the engagement at Pylus he was wounded and fell over-
board. ‘He fell, he says, ‘on to the wapefe:pecia, and
his shield slipped off*. What he means is: ‘he fell over-
board on to the projecting parts of the oars.’
Vv
When he gives the form of nouns to the verbal parts of
speech, he expresses himself as follows. In his First Book
the Corinthian envoy addresses the Athenians thus: ‘such
are the pleas for justice we can bring before you, together
with the following exhortation and claim to gratitude*’
Here the verbs ‘we can exhort’ and ‘we can claim’ have
been changed into the nouns ‘exhortation’ and ‘claim.’
Parallel expressions are ‘the non-circumvallation of the
Plemmyrium’ in the Seventh Book, and ‘the lamentation’
1 Thucyd. 1. 138. 2 Thucyd. 11. 37.
® Thucyd. Iv. 12. + Thucyd. I. 41.
Ic
O
140 DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSUS.
EBSopn BUB\w <Kkal 7» dAddUpoLS HV ev TH TpPaTH
BiBr\w> réOnkev ev Snpnyopia. TO yap amoTEerxioat
kal TO OX\OPVpacOat pyuaTiKa OVTA dVOMATLKaS Ea X7N-
MATLKEV GTOTELYLOLY Kal OLOdupay.
Wal
7 \ > / ¢ / , \ 4 ‘\
Orav d€ avTLoTpeysas EKATEPOV TOUTMV THY PvaW TA
A a , \
OvomaTa TOWN pHmata, TOUTOV TOV TpdmoV EeKpeper THV
, c 5 A 4 / \ a“ > , “~ ,
heEw, ws ev TH TPOTH BUBw TEpL TIS aiTLas TOV TOAEMOU
/ ‘ \ \ “> > , > 7 , de
ypade: ‘7Hv pev ovv adynfeotdrny aitiav, hoyw oe
adaveotarny, Tovs APnvatovs olopar weyadous ywopmevous
b] iL > \ La) b] / \ la 7
dvaykdoat els TO Todeperv. PBovdrerar yap Sydovy, ore
peyahou yryvopevor ot “APnvator avaykynv Tapéoxov TOU
Toe“ou: TETOInKEY S€ aVTL THS aVaYKYS Kal TOU TOhEMoU
OVOMATLK@Y OVTWY PNMATLKA TO TE AVAYKATaL Kal TO
TONEMELD.
VII
A \ a ¢ , by , \ » a A
Otav de T@MV PNLAT@V ahdatTy Ta elon TWV TaOnTiKaV
Kal TOUNTLK@V, OTM oynpaTtiler | TOV Adyou: ‘ouvTE yap 797
> Con) , ~ ~ A / ) \ ‘ 4
€xeivo Kw\VEL Tals GTOVOals oUTE TOOE’’ TO yap KwUEL
la ‘\ ~ wn
PHA evepyNnTiKOV UTapyYoV avTt TOV KwhUVETAaL TaPnTLKOU
> \ Lal
OvTos Tapet\nmTar: HV S€ TO ONMaLYOpEvOY VTO TIS
héews TovovTo: ‘ ovTE yap eketvo kwdVeTat Tals oovdats
¥ , ) NEL, y 2 a , , ips cs
oUTE TOE. Kal ETL TA EV TH TPOOLWl@ eyopeva: ‘77S
\ > , > »” aIN3e , > ~ > ,
yap €uropias ovK ovens, ovd erivyvivTes adew@s addi-
) \
hous’ Kal yap <€v> TOUTOLS TO ETLMLYVUVTES EVEPYNTLKOV
1 €Bd6un BiBw TéGeckev libri: hiatum perspexit Kruegerus et explevit.
2 TéOnkev a: 7éOLec]kev cum litura Ps. 3 7d d\optpacba] Us, arodopipacbat
PCD, damodopipecda G. 6 moe P. 7 Bi8dw libri (passim).
8 otv] yap © | airiay] rpopacw O. Q apavertarny 5é oyw O | olouac]
Tyoupa O. ywopevous] yeryvouevous kal poBov wapéxovtas Tots Aaxedatmovios O.
Io avayxaca LP | és O. 13 avaykaca P. 17 Kwdrvet &v Tais O | rat
(sed s supra lin. add. pr. m.) P. 23 ev CDs. om. EG:
SECOND LETTER TO AMMAEUS. 141
which in the First Book he has mentioned in the course of
a speech’. For to the verbs ‘to circumvallate’ and ‘to
lament’ he has given the form of the nouns ‘ circumvallation ’
and ‘lamentation.’
VI
But when conversely he turns his nouns into verbs, he
produces such an expression as we find in the First Book
when the cause of the war is under discussion. ‘The most real
cause, though that which was least acknowledged, I consider
to have been the fact that the growth of the Athenian power
compelled them to wage war’.’ His meaning is that the
growth of the Athenian power caused a compulsion to the
war. But for the nouns ‘compulsion’ and ‘war’ he has
substituted the verbs ‘to compel’ and ‘to wage war.’
VII
When he interchanges the passive and active forms
of verbs, he writes in this fashion: ‘for neither the one
hinders by the truce nor the other’. The active verb
‘hinders’ is employed in place of the passive ‘is hin-
dered’ The real meaning of the expression is: ‘for
neither the one is hindered by the truce nor the other.’
And so also with the words found in his introduction :
‘for in the absence of commerce, they did not mingle
freely with one another’ Here the active verb ‘did
* Thucyd. 1. 143.—As to % ovK amorelxiots, see note on p. 179 infra.
2 Thucyd. I. 23. 3 Thucyd. I. 144. 4 Thucyd. fr. 2.
5
10
15
20
142 DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSUS.
, a“ A lal y»
UTapxXov pHuwa Tov eTipmtyvvpevou TabynTLKOD OvTOS
, > ,
Xvpav ETEK EL.
Vay
“Orav S5€ avit Tov TonTiKod 70 TaOnTLKOY Tapadap-
Bavy, TovTov oynpartile Tov TpdTov: ‘ npav Sé oor per
“APnvators dn evnd\daynoav’: BovdeTar pev yap dyhovv-
‘npav d€ ocou pev “APynvatois cvvy\d\akav, tapethynpev
d€ 70 evn\Ndynoav TabytiKdYV UTapxov avTt ToLNTLKOD
Tov cuvyd\ha€av. Kal TO EemipEepopevoy TOvTwW: ‘TOUS
S &y 7n pecoyeia paddov KaTwKnpevous’ avTl yap Tov
TOUNTLKOV pHLATOS TOV KaTwKYHKOTAaS TO TAaONTLKOY
4 \ /
Tape\npey TO KATMKNMEVOUS.
IX
| Tlapa 6€ tas Tov évikav TE Kal TNOvYTLK@V SLadopas,
4 > ? \ c / 4 /, ¢ \ \ > ‘\
oTav evahhatTn THY ExaTEepou TOVTWY TAEW, EVLKA MEV AVTL
lol ty » y+
TAnOvrTLK@V oUTWS ekeper’ ‘KaL EL TW Apa TAapeaTHKEV
Tov pev Svpakdcvov, avtov d€ ov Todguroy Elvar TO
“A@nvata’: Bovd é i Vs Lupakoctovs hé
AOnvatw ovleTat pev yap Tovs Yvpakootovs héyew
Kal Tovs AOynvatous, Teroinkey O€ TMV OVOMATwY EKATEPOV
eviKov. Kal ev ols dnow: ‘Kat TOY TohEemLoy SELvdTEpOV
E€opev, 1) padlas avT@ Taw ovonsS THS avayxwpyHoews
lal \ lal
TOUS yap TOELLOUS ETXNMATLKEV EVLKOS, OVXL TANOUYTLKOS.
3 \ \ “~ ¢ ‘al \ ‘\ iZ nw
avTt d€ Tov Evikov TO TANOUYTLKOY TapahapBaver TOUTOV
\ / > / XN / , ~ \ ¢
TOv TpoTov e€addatTov THY avVAOn ppaow: KeEtTar Se 7H
, > lol , i>. ©) / P ¢ , \ an
héEis <€v> TO TpooLLtw TOV emLTapiov: ‘pep yap TOVSE
I Tov émiyuyviijevo. CDs: Tov émunyvupévov PG. 3,4 tmapadauBar[ ye] cum
rasurae vestigiis P. 8, 9 rods dé r7Hy weodyeray wa)h)ov Kal wh ev TOpH KaTwWKNLEVOUS
0. 9g et 11 KaTukerpévous P. 13 évaddarTn sine ce P | évixa G*CDs:
qvika PGia. 14 el Tw] ofrws PGCD: ex O corr. Herwerdenus.
15 avrov PCD, aid G: corr. Kruegerus. 15, 16 7@ d@nvalw G, rv aOnvaiwy PDa,
Tov adnvatov Cs. 19 patdias P, pasdiws Thucydidis libri ABC(??)EFM.
23 ev CDs: om. PG.
798
SECOND LETTER TO AMMAEUS. 143
not mingle’ occupies the place of the passive ‘were not
mingled.’
VIII
When instead of the active he uses the passive, he con-
structs a sentence of this kind: ‘all of us who had by this
time been brought into contact with the Athenians’.”’ His
meaning is: ‘all of us who dealt with the Athenians.’ But
he has used the passive form ‘been brought into contact
with’ in place of the active ‘dealt with. And so with
what next follows: ‘those who had been settled more
in the interior®.’ For instead of the active verb ‘who had
settled’ he has used the passive ‘who had been settled.’
IX
As regards the distinction of singular and plural, he
changes the two numbers about and uses singular for plural
thus: ‘and if perchance it occurs to some one that not he,
but the Syracusan, is the enemy of the Athenian*’ He means
‘Syracusans’ and ‘Athenians, but he has put each of the
proper names in the singular. Another instance is the passage :
‘and we shall find the enemy more formidable, if his retreat
is made difficult*’ Here he has put ‘enemies’ in the
singular, not in the plural. Deviating in the same way from
customary language, he uses the plural in place of the singular.
This mode of expression will be found in the first part of
the Funeral Speech: ‘for eulogies bestowed on others are
1 Thucyd. I. 120. * Thucyd. I. 120.
3 Thucyd. vi. 78. 4 Thucyd. Iv. ro.
144 DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSUS.
QVEKTOL OL ETaLVOL ELowW TEpt ETEPOV Leyopevot, €s owov
a Y ȴ > lal a
av Kal avTOS EKaGTOS OlNTaL LKavds Elva Spacal TL ov
¥ ’ N Y ¥
NKoVvoEV'* TO yap EKATTOS KA TO NKOVOEY EVLKG, TA
° > / 4 a“ > 4 0 6 “~ .
eTipEepomeva ToVTOLs TANOvYTLKaS eLevyvEKTaL’ ‘TH Se
ee / > ~ A“ »” \ > A b
5 UmrepBaddovte avtov | POovovvTes Hdy Kal amiaTovTW’ 799
* x
* ov kal? Evos héyer Oar TepvKacw, AMAA KATA TOAD.
Xx
> la \ ‘\ A \ > 7 >
Appevixav 5€ Kat OnduKav Kal ovdeTépwr avTimeTa-
/ b) (os “A / 4 c /
Ta€es exBeBynxviar Tov ocvvyfwv cyynpdtwv ai Tovaide
elo" olov THY pev Tapayny Tapayov Kady TO OydrvKOV
> / > A \ \ »” »” \ \
10 €KPEPOV AppEVLKwS Kal THY OxynoW Ox ov, THY SE
4 ‘ \ , ‘\ / / \ \
Bovdkyow Kat THY Svvapw TO Bovdopevov heyy Kat TO
, epi SN a5 , s Y \ >
duvapevov’ ws emt tov AOnvaiwy téyKev, OTE THY Els
Suxediav améotehdov otpatiay: ‘ot d€ “APnvator TO pev
Bovdopevov ovKk adnpeOnoav imo Tov dyd@dous THS
ovddpevov odk abnpeOn b dx 7
A ’ a \ va A »
15 TAPATKEUNS, Kal Ev ols EPL THY Oecoahav ELpHKEV:
‘wate el 7 SvvacTeia paddrov 7} icvovopia éxpwvTo T@
> , ¢ (3) 5 \ \ > a Oe
emiywpiw ot Oecoadoi’* Kat yap evtavla ovd€érepov
meroinkey TO OnduKov’ Hv S€ TO ONpaLYdmEVOV UT THS
heEews ToLovde’ ‘ wWaTE El 7) OvVaGTELa Mahdov 7 icovopia
S pa) 1 Padov 7 igovopig
5 wn“ “~ 5 , c 4?)
20 EYPWVTO TH ETLXYWPLY OL @eooadot.
XI
) iN \ \ nw 4 \ ~
Ep ois 6€ Tas TTMG ELS TOV GVOPATwY Kal TOV TpOTYYyo-
Qr A lal co \ ~
Pl@v KGL TWV HPETOX @V KQL <T@WV> TUVATITOLEVOV | TOUVTOLS 800
4 7 Sine iota P 5 av’rov P: a’tav GCDs [Thucydidis libri: avrav EFm,
schol. (r@v éralywv Sndovért), airov ABCFGM]. 6 ante ov hiatum notavit
Usenerus cl. weptxacw v. 6c. éevnvextat Vv. 4. 8 éxBeBnkvia P.
g otov CDs: aay sic P, olay Ga | kadj P. Ir Aéyne P. 12 Téeckev
libri. 13 ’A@nvaio. deest Thucydidi. 14 Bovddpevov] ériOunodv rod mod
8 | oixadnpéOncav P, obk é&npéOnoar O. 16,17 76 éyxwptov O.
23. Tay ante cuvaTTouévwy ex apographo Laurentiano inseruit Herwerdenus.
SECOND LETTER TO AMMAEUS. 145
endurable only so far as each person thinks that he is himself
capable of any of the deeds of which he hears’. Here
the words ‘each person’ and ‘hears’ are singular, but the
following words are put in the plural: ‘but when this point
is passed, they begin to feel envy and /incredulity*’ * * Such
expressions would naturally be used not of one person but
of many.
Xx
Examples of the interchange of the three genders, in con-
travention of the ordinary rules of language, are such as these.
He uses tapayxos in the masculine for tapayy in the feminine,
and similarly dyXos for éyAnots. In place of tHv BovAnow and
thv dvvapw he uses To BovAopevoy and 70 duvamevov. For in-
stance, he says of the Athenians when they were considering
the dispatch of their forces to Sicily: ‘the Athenians were
not robbed of their wishing (to BovAcpevov) by the burden of
the preparations®.’ There is a similar instance in the passage
in which he refers to the Thessalians: ‘#ate et un Suvvacteia
MaAXov 7) (covouia expavTo ro ETLYwpio oi Meccaroi*. Here
he has made the feminine neuter. The real signification of
the expression is: ‘date ei un Suvactela padXov 7) Loovouia
> rn a > / Cy 4)
EXPOVTO 7H ETLYWpLO of Meccano.
XI
Sometimes he gives an unusual turn to the cases of
proper nouns and appellatives and participles and the
1 Thucyd. I. 35. 2 Thucyd. Il. 35-
3 Thucyd. vI. 24. 4 Thucyd. 1v. 78.
Re Io
10
15
20
146 DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSUS.
apOpwv e€addarrer TOV cuvyOous, ovTws oyynpaTile | 7H
4 ‘ , ‘ “ ¢ / XN
dpace|’ ‘cwdpocvyvynv yap haBovoar ai modes Kat
adelavy TOV TpaTTopevwy e€xopnoav eTl THY aVTLKpUS
3 , A SN an > , ¢ , > , >
elevOepiav, THS ao TaV “ABynvaiwy vrovov Evvopias ov
TPOTLLATAVTES. ol pev yap akohoVOws TH KowH cvvnOeEta
oxnpatilovres THY Ppacw To Te OnuKw yéver THS TPOTH-
yoplas TO OndvKov av elevEay popiov, Kal THY TT@OLW
[7Hs petoyns| THY altiaTiKHY <av> aVTL THS ‘yeviKS
¥ \ / / 5 6 4 \ n
era€av Tov TpdTov TOVvdEe’ ‘acudpocvvnyv yap haBovoat
ai TOES Kal AdELaY TOV TpAaTcoOpEeVvwr exopnoav emt THV
¥ > , \ aN ~ > , 9’
avTuKpus €devlepiav, THv amo tav “APnvatwy virovdov
evvouiay ov TpoTyrnoaca. ol dé Ta appEviKa Tots
An y @
OndvuKots TvYTATTOVTES, WOTEP OUTOS TeETOInNKEV, <KaL>
TAS YEVLKAS GVTL TOV ALTLATLK@V TTOOEWY TaparapPavovTeES
/ >» c > ec Las JA NS ¥ ‘ lal .
godoukilewy av vb ynuwv €yowTo. kal ETL TA TOLAVTA
‘ XN \ A“ nO > la | la 5 > \ SEN
Kal pn TO TANGA avTav KataThayevTes'* OV yap emt
lal lay fo 4
THs SoTUKNS TT@TEWS EoYHNpaTticbar THY EE HppmorTer,
ON NOS SS a > Greens \ \ \ A A ,
GN émt THS altaTLKHS’ ‘Kal pn TO TANOOS TOY ToELLwV
KatamayevTes. ov0€ yap ‘TH Tapa Tav Oeav opyn
an ) , 5 yy , N ‘ \ ~ Lal >) / )
poBetcar’ €eyour av Ts, adda ‘THY Tw Deav dpynv.
oh
c i \ \ yy “~ c 4 > Lal X\
H 6€ rapa Tovs ypovous Tav pnudtwv éexBeBnkvia 70
KaTaddnhov dpaois Tovavty Tis €oTL’ ‘Kaitou ei pabupia
4 eee aes pavupia
4 x» , s \ \ \ / \ / a
paddov 7 movav med€TH Kal py [ETA VOLwVY TO TEOV 7H
TpoTav avopeias eHéomev Kiwvdvvevey, TEpryiverar Hu
I dvtws P: ottrws G, otrw CDs | rie ppacee PG: thy ppacw CDs. delevit
glossema Usenerus. 4 [Thucydidis libri: rjs...... UmrovAouv evvoulas BS, ris
Lhe Urovdov abtovouiay ex cr. b a’rovouias mg. B, riv......Umouhov eivoulay C, THv
shoe Urovdov avtovoulay AEFGM || ad B, td ACEFGMS.] 6 7&7e Gs:
76 Te PCD. 7 av &fevéav] Herwerdenus, avréfevEav PGCD. 8 Tis
perox7s glossema vocis pépiov falso loco irrepsisse censet Usenerus | dy inseruit
Herwerdenus. 13 ouvrdrrovres] Us, cuvérarrov PCD | kai add. Us.
17 éoxmareicba P. 20 Aéyo Téy P. 21 €kBeBnxvla P.
Pa ee.273.-..
SECOND LETTER TO AMMAEUS. 147
articles attached to them. He will then frame such a
sentence as this: ‘for the states, having obtained a tem-
pered liberty and security in their undertakings, advanced
towards downright freedom, scorning the “specious pretence
of law and order” offered by the Athenians’. Now writers
whose syntax conforms to ordinary usage would have coupled
the feminine form (sc. of the participle) with the feminine
gender of the noun, and would have used the accusative
instead of the genitive case as follows: ‘cwdpooivvnv yap
AaBodoat ai ores Kal Adevay THY Tpaccomévwy eYopNnoaV
emi THY avTiKpus eXEVOEpiay, THY ato TOV “AOnvaiwy irovNov
evvomiay ov mpotiuicacar. Whereas authors who construct
masculines with feminines, as Thucydides has done, and use
genitives instead of accusatives, would be said by us to be
guilty of solecism. This is true also of the following words :
‘kal pn TO ANGEL ad’T@V KaTaTrayevTes’. The sentence
ought to have been constructed not in the dative case but in
the accusative: ‘xal un To 7AnGos TOY TONEML@Y KaTaTAAa-
yévtes. Just as no one would be said ‘77 mapa trav Gedy
opyn poBeicGar, but rather ‘tyv TOY Oedv opynv.’
XII
The style which neglects consistency in the tenses of
verbs is of the following kind: ‘And yet, if we should
choose to face danger unconcernedly rather than after careful
training, and with a courage born of habit rather than in
obedience to law, we have the advantage of not being
1 Thucyd. vii. 64. 2 Thucyd. Iv. ro.
rOo——2Z
148 DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSUS.
A , > a XN / \ > > \
Tots Te peANOVTW adyEWoLS py TPOKapVELY KaL ES aUTA
> A“ \ > / “A SEN 4 7 Jie
ehOovor py aTohpoTepots TaV del poyOovvTav dhaiver bar
> lal \ ‘\ \ > / cA “ , / >
evrava yap To pev EO€hoLmeEV pHpa TOV wEAOVTOS EoTL
xpovov SynrwruKdv, TO O€ TEpLyivEeTaL TOV TapdrTos.
5akod\ovov 8 av nv, et cuvélevEev T@ €OE€doLMEV TO
at Ste
hy
TEPLETTAL ‘tov Te yap yxaptov To dvcéuBarov
NLETEPOV VOmil@, O MEVOLTMV MEV NOV TVppLAXOV yiveTaL’
Uroywpynoac. dé Kaimep yaherov ov eEvTopov eaTaL.’
TO pev yap | yivetau Tov mapdvTos eoTi, TO S€ EaTat 802
10 TOV sLeMAOVTOS ypovov SyaTiKdv. yéyovev SE Kal Tapa
TAS TTWOOELS TXHNMATLO MOS akaTaAAnos* Em pev yap THS
yevikyns TT@TEWS eLeVHVOYEY TO TE PETOXLKOVY OVOMA TO
JLEVOVTMV Kal TO aVTOVOMAGTLKOY TO NMaV, emi Sé THS
doTiKHS TO VTOKapHTaTLY* oikeELdTEpov O HV Kal TOUTO
\ \ > \ > 7 “A
15 KATQ TYV AUTYV eEevnvex Pau TTWO LV.
XIII
“Orav S5€ mpos TO ONpatvoy amo TOV onpaLWopevou
lal \
TPAaYMAaTOS THY aTooTpOPyY TounTaL 7) TpPoOs TO ONmaLwd-
A by \ ’
[LEVOV AmrO TOV ONMALVOVTOS, OVTWS TXnpaTileL TOY Oyor: |
‘trav d€ Svpakociwyv 6 Shpos ev Tohhy pos adArhovs
¥ > ) \ \ ¢ \ ¥ \ A > ,
20 €plou Woav’: mpobleis yap eviKdv odvopa Tov SHmov are-
otpeev amo Tovtov Tov éoyov emt TO oONpaLWopeEVvoV
Tpaypa mAnOvv7iKov vidpyxov, Tovs Lupakoctovs. Kal
avis’ ‘Aeovtivor yap atrehOovtav ’AOnvaiwv ek Xuxedias
‘\ \ 4 4 3 /, \
peTa THY ovpBaow ToXtiTas Te | ereypaavTo Trodods 803
* ¢€ “~ 5 4 \ ia > , > Bb) \ ‘ “~
25 KAL O dnpLos ETEVOEL TYV Oo AILA avadacacbat * Q7TO Y2p TOU
5 day P. 6 ante rod excidit transitus formula. 7 voplfer sic P | dv P.
12,13 70 pev dvTwv P. 13 kai7d CDs: kal PG | dvrovouacrixdy] Us, avrovo-
parikoy Pa, avrwrupexoy CD, avtwvupartcxor s. 16 onpatvov CDs: cnpawdbuevov
PG. 18 oxmarife P. 20, 21 améotpewev CDs: éméotpewev Pa.
25 Thy ynv érevicr O.
(
;
I, 2 eoavra éNovor P | arodporépous O. 3 eon P. 4 qmeprylyvera P.
SECOND LETTER TO AMMAEUS. 149
afflicted by troubles which are in the future, while we show
ourselves, in the midst of troubles, to be no less daring than
those who are always toiling’? Here é0éXowmev is a verbal
form which indicates the future, while zrepuyiveras indicates
the present. The construction would have been regular if he
had joined qepséotar with €0édouev. * * ‘1 consider the
inaccessibility of the spot to be in our favour; but this helps
us only if we stand our ground; if we retire, the position,
though difficult in itself, will easily be mastered by the
enemy’. Now yiverac refers to the present, but ésras to
the future. The cases also are irregularly constructed. For
he has put the participle wevovtwy and the pronoun jor in
the genitive case, but vzroywpyocacw in the dative. Whereas
the latter should, more properly, have corresponded in case
to the two former.
XI
When he makes the transition from the sense to the
expression or from the expression to the sense, he uses a
construction of the following kind: ‘the populace of the
Syracusans were at great odds with one another®’ Although
he begins with the singular noun ‘populace, he assimilates
the expression to the sense, which is plural, ‘the Syracusans.’
And again: ‘for when the Athenians quitted Sicily after
the convention, the men of Leontini enrolled many new
citizens, and the populace entertained the idea of redis-
1 Thucyd. 11. 39. 2 Thucyd. Iv. ro. 3 Thucyd. VI. 35.
I50 DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSUS.
mAnOvvTLKOV dvomaTtos TOV AE€ovTivot aTéoTpepev TOV
\ \ ¥ \ A ue 2 a
hoyov emt TO EviKOV OVOoMa TOV SHpOP. = < =
XIV
/ \ > > ~/ \ / / ,
IIpoowra 5€ rap’ at7@ Ta Tpdypata yiverar, Kaba-
tep ev TH Kopw6iwv mpos Aakedayoviovs Sypnyopta
5 yeyovev: a€iav yap 6 KoptvOvos tovs tpoeatnKoTas THS
, / > ‘an ‘\ > / \ \ »¥
Hle\orovyvncou dudarrew adtns 70 a€iwpa pos Tas e&w
TONES, olov Tapa TaV TaTépwv TapéaBov, TavTa héyeu-
‘rpos Tade BovdeverUe ev, kai THv IleXoTOvyncgov Tepac De
\ > , ’ > A x» c / c A / )
pn ehacaov’ eEnyeto Oar 7) ot matépes vpiv tapédocar’:
10 TO yap e€nyetoOar vov réOnkev emt Tod Tpodyew €&w
\ / c 4 5 “A nw \ ‘ae 4
Tv Hedorovyvnaov yyoupevous avTns: TovTO b€ TH XoOPa
\ ~) 4 > “a ~ \ i“ \ a 7
pev advvatov HV cupByvat, TH Se S0EN Kal Tots TPdypacL
Tots TEpl avTHY UTdpxXovaw SuvaTov, Kat BovEeTaL TOUTO
dndovr.
4 \ > \ 4 \ lal (ek > lal
15 Ipdypata d€ avti copatwy Ta ToLavTAa VT avTOD
/ “4 \ ¢ \ an / nan \
yiverar: héeyerar d€ ro TOU KopwOiwy mpeaBevtovd mpos
/ / 4 3 id \
Aakedatpovious ovyKpivortos Ta TE “AOnvaiwy Kat Aake-
Satpoviwr ‘ou | pev ye VEWTEPOTFOLOL Kal ETWonaat O€ELs 804
Kal emitehéoar Epyw av yvaow: vpels O€ TA UTAPXOVTA
20T€ TWLELW Kal ETLYVOVAL PLNOEV Kal Epyw OVOE TA avayKata
e€ixeobar’: péype pev ovv tovtwv TO aynpa THS héEEws
0C \ > x 0c c JIN / > 4
cole. THY akohoviiav, ws emt TpoceTaV appoTépav
KEiEvOV. eETELTA aToaTpEepeTar KATA HaTEpov TaV pEPaV
0 hoOyos, Kal GVTL TOY TOPLATWY Tpay~a ylvEeTaL TEPL TOUS
5 / 9 a ¢ > de e \ ‘\ S
25 Aakedatpovious, oTrav dyn: ‘avis d€ ol pev Kat Tapa
\
dvvapw TohpyTal Kal Tapa yvopnv KLvdvVEvTAal Kal €V
2 nonnulla hic deesse perspexit Kruegerus, quibus illustranda fuerint, quae
Dionysius supra p. 134, 13—19 proposuit. 8 mpdara de P | BovdeverBe
OCs: BovederPar Pa | repacbe P. g €\acoov PG, éX\arrov CDs, éAdoow O.
18 yevwereporrool P. 19 dv yaow] 6 avdyvwow Pa, dv ywow GCDs, 6 av
yraow codd. 8 (4 av yvouw Thucyd. edd. recc.). 20 oweew sine iota P (et v.
22). 26 év etiam Thucydidis libri CEGM (éi ABF).
SECOND LETTER TO AMMAEUS. 151
tributing the land’ From the plural ‘men of Leontini’
he passes to the singular noun ‘the populace.’ * * * * * *
XIV
In his History things are treated as persons, as in
the address of the Corinthians to the Lacedaemonians. The
Corinthian speaker urges the leading men of the Peloponnese
to maintain its prestige, in the eyes of external states, such
as their fathers transmitted it to them. These are his words:
‘You must, therefore, be well advised, and strive that the
Peloponnese which you lead forth may be no less powerful
than when your fathers left it to your care’ He has used
the expression ‘to lead forth’ in the sense ‘to guide the
Peloponnese outside as its leaders. Now this could not
apply to the territory, but it can apply to its glory and its
power, and this is what he means to say.
Persons are transformed into things by him in the fol-
lowing way. When the same Corinthian envoy, addressing
the Lacedaemonians, compares the characters of the Athe-
nians and Lacedaemonians, he says: ‘They are innovators
and quick to conceive plans and to execute their resolves.
But your alertness is directed to preserving what you have
and to forming no fresh resolve, and to refraining even from
the execution of what is absolutely essential*.’ Now up to
this point the construction is normal, the two persons forming
its basis. But afterwards in the second clause the expression
is changed, and instead of persons a thing is used in reference
to the Lacedaemonians, when he says: ‘and once more they
are daring even beyond their power, and venturesome beyond
1 Thucyd. v. 4. 2 Thucyd. ft. 7!
3 Thucyd. I. 7o.
5
Io
15
20
152 DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSUS.
“ “A > 7 \ \ c 4 “~ ,
rots Sewots evédmides: TO S€ vpuerepov THs Te Suvdpews
evdea pacar THS TE yvOpuNns pNdE Tots BEBatois TiTTEd-
oa.’* TO yap vMeTEpoV avTL TOV UVmEtS TapelAnTTaL,
~ A wr
T pay a UTa pYov GQVTL TOU DWpaTos.
XV
Sw \ A > , , \ , c N
Ev d€ rots evOupnpacty Te Kal vonpacw at peTa€
A \ / A / > \ MS 4
TAPELTT WO ELS TohNar yivopLevat Kat podus emt TO TEAOS
5 / > A ¢ / 4 /
APLKVOULEVAL, du as n ppacts dSvoTapakohovOynTos YWETAL,
Lay) / > > & \ c / b) ,
mretoTar péev elow Kal? ony THY LoTOpiay: | apKeTovar 805
dé €x Tov mpooiulov dvo0 AnPUetoar povat, 7 Te Snovoda
\ 5 / lay > / la c / / ‘\
mv acbeveray TaV apxatwv THS “EN\dbos TpaypaTwv Kal
Tas aitlas aTodLbovca: ‘THS yap EuTopias ovK ovaNs,
> \ 3 4 > A > 4 x \ ~ A \
ovde EripryvUYTEs AdEWS AAAYAOLS OVTE KATA yHV OUTE Oia
Jatacons, vepomevol TE TA aUT@V EkacTOL OTOV amolny
KGL TEPLOVTLAV YPHN[LATWV OUK EXOVTES, OUVTE ynV PUTEVOVTES,
A X ¢ , > \ \ S553) > , »”
adydov Ov omoTe Tis ETE WY Kal ap aTELXLOTwY OVTaV
/ la > A ~
addos adaipyoeTa’ THS TE aAvayKalov Tpopys TavTAXOU
Gv Opolws emiKpaTHoELY oldpevor OV YaheTa@s avicTaVTO’
(<el yap TO ov yaheTas aviatavtTo> TpocenKeEv TH
TPOTH TEPLOOW Kal ETXNMATLTEV OVTWS* ‘THS yap euzTOplas
> » 2a> 9 , > a > , ¥” N
OUK OVENS, OVS eTYLLyVUVTES adE@s GAH oLS OUTE KATA
ynv <ovTe Kata Oataccay>, vepopevor d€ Ta EavTov
EKaoTOL OGOV aTolny ov xaheTas avictavTo, pavepwrepav
x > / \ / a \ a lal \
av é€roter tHv didvowav: TH S€ TapeuBo\n Tov petra&d
/ an A > “~ XN 4
Tpaypatwv TOMY OVTwY acady Kal dvaTAapaKodOVOnTOV
2 évded mpdiac CDs: évde arrapéa P. 4 vUmapxwy P. 8 meiora
libri: corr. Kruegerus | xa@odnv PD. 13 a’ray s: aitavy PGD. 14 ovdée 9.
15 ov moté P: dy ordre OGCDs. dua TerxicTav P, awa atexlorwy GCD:
aretxloTwv aua Oas. 16 te PGCD: Te cad’ nuépay Gas. 17 ay ouolws
(dvouoiwas P) as (om. CD) émixparjoew oldpevo. PGCDa: ay Ayotpmevor éemixparety
Os. dmaviocrayro Qs hic et infra vy. 22. 18) .elzee avioravto addidit
Usenerus | mpocé6nxev] Us, mpooreféev PGCD. 1g éoxnudricev] Us, oxnua-
tisbev PGCD. 21 ore kara Oadatray G: om. PCD: ov're dia Gadacons O | de]
Te Gut O. 23 émoln rasurae vestigio supra 7 relicto P.
SECOND LETTER TO AMMAEUS. 153
their better judgment, and full of hope in the hour of danger ;
but your way (To 6€ tpuétepov) is to act below the measure
of your power and to trust not even the safe conclusions
of your judgment!’ Here ‘your way’ is used instead of
‘you, a thing taking the place of a person.
XV
In his enthymemes and sentences the parentheses are
numerous and reach their conclusion with difficulty. This
makes the meaning hard to follow. There are many of them
in every part of the History; but two only, taken from the
Introduction, will suffice. One is the passage which shows the
weakness of Primitive Greece and assigns the causes. ‘For
in the absence of commerce, they did not mingle freely with
one another whether by land or over sea: each tribe pos-
sessing property enough of its own to support existence and
having no superfluous goods ; none cultivating the land, for it
was uncertain when some invader would come and rob them,
as there were no fortifications to protect them: and feeling
that they could command the bare means of subsistence
everywhere alike, they readily migrated*’ If he had added
the word ‘readily migrated’ to the first period and shaped
it thus, ‘In the absence of commerce they did not mingle
freely with one another by land or by sea, but each tribe
possessing enough property of its own to support existence,
they migrated readily, he would have made his meaning
clearer, but by the insertion of many parenthetical clauses he
has made it obscure and hard to follow. The second passage
1 Thucyd. I. 70. 2 Thucyd. I. 2.
154 DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSUS.
TeTOlnKeEV), Kal 7 TEpt THS Evpvaobéws oTparetas emt THY
3 \ Y ‘ 7 > / > “A Mt) Ane NG nw
Ariruxny de wpvobews ev TH “AtTiKy v0 Hpakdedav 806
> / > , \ XV > la >” > lal QA
amofavovtos, Atpéws d€ pyntpos adedPov oOvTos avT@, Kal
> / 13> , 97 3 > / 4 \
eritpewavtos Evpvabéas, or eotpdteve, Muxyvas Te Kat
5TH apxynv KaTa TO olKetoy ’ATpet: TYyxavew dé avdTov
dhevyovta Tov tatépa dua Tov Xpvoimmov Oavatov: Kat
¢ 3 / > 4 > 4 7 ‘\ Lal
@S OUKETL avexwopynoey Kvpvabevs, Bovopevav Kat Tov
Mukynvaiov poBw trav “Hpakdedav, Kat apa dSuvarov
Sokovvta elva Kal TO TANOOS TeHeparrevKdTa TOV MuKn-
, \ ¢g = \ \ , 5) ,
10 valwy TE Kal OowV Evpua beds jpyev THY Baowdelav “ATpéa
TapahaBetv.’
XVI
"Ev ots 6€ oKodLa Kal ToAVTAOKOS Kat SudeEEeLKTOS 7)
Tav evOupynpatwv KaTaoKEvy yiveTat, TOUTOV TOV TPOTOV
¥ > 2 A an X90 n° , ¢ , eS
Evel Tap avT@: KetTar O€ ev TM Eerritadhiw 7H Eis: ‘THV
15 0€ TOV evayTioy TYyLwpiav TOPEWoTépay avTav haBdovTeEs
Kal KWOUVOY ada TOVOE KAALOTOV VopicavTes EBovAHOn-
q \ A A oo One > , \ \
wav Tovs pev TynwpetoOar Tov S edierMar, ehidu pev Td
> \ lal 4 > , A \ \ nn
adaves Tov Katopbacew | emutpebavtes, Epyw O€ TEpt TOD 807
On Opwpéevov adiaw avtots a€vodvtTes meTovlevar: ev Ta
apvver Oar wabety paddov nynodevor 7 evdovtes caler Oat
20 Gp ye Hynedpwevor 7)
\ A \ “~
TO ev aloxpov Tov Noyou edvyor, 70 8 Epyov TH TaHpaTe
Umeuewav Kal Ov eX\ayioTov KaLpov TUYNS apa aKuH THS
/ ‘a » a , > / bf lal 4 5
ddEys paddov 7 Tov déovs amynAdyynoav. ToLvadTa eote
Kal Ta TEpt OeutoToKéovs Elpnueva VO TOU ovyypadews
25€V TH TpaTH BUBrw: ‘HY yap 6 OeycatoKdns BeBavorara
\ , > ‘\ / \ / > > ‘\
67 dicews icxdy Snrooas Kat SvadpepovTws Tu és avTo
lol ¢e / A UA 5 / \ 4 \
paddov érépov a&tos Oavpacar. oixeia yap Evverer kal
1 evptobews P ut v. 2 et 4. arparias libri: corr. H. Stephanus. 2 Oe
s: 7Oé Pa | é€v P: pev év OCs. 8 punkuvatwy P. 10 édcwv CDs: wordy PG.
15 modwwrépay P. 16 Tov 6é P | vounoarres P. 17 Tovs] mer’ a’rod rods O,
19 dpwuévovs pnow PG: corr. s. 19, 20 €v TH autverOa| Kai év a’T@ TO
apvverbat kai 9. 20 47080. 27 Oavudoa P.
SECOND LETTER TO AMMAEUS. 155
is that which refers to the invasion of Attica by Eurystheus.
‘Eurystheus was slain in Attica by the Heracleidae. His
maternal uncle was Atreus, to whom as being his kinsman
Eurystheus entrusted the kingdom of Mycenae when he went
to the wars. Atreus had been banished by his father because
of the murder of Chrysippus. When Eurystheus failed to
return, Atreus succeeded to the sovereignty over the My-
cenaeans and over all others who had been under the rule
of Eurystheus. He did so at the desire of the Mycenaeans,
who feared the Heracleidae. He had also courted the multi-
tude, and was thought to be a man of power'.’
XVI
The plan of his enthymemes is sometimes tortuous
and involved and hard to unravel, as in the following
passage of the Funeral Speech: ‘They found a dearer
delight in the punishment of their foes; danger thus in-
curred they considered the noblest of all, and wished to
subordinate all other aims to that of vengeance. They com-
mitted the uncertainty of success to hope, but in action
deemed it right to trust themselves as concerning what was
now before their eyes. Thinking it right to suffer in self-
defence rather than save their lives by submission, they
escaped a shameful reputation by exposing themselves to
the brunt of the fray; and in a moment of time they were
removed, at the height of their fortune, from the scene of
their glory rather than their fear’. Of this kind also is the
characterisation of Themistocles given by the historian in his
First Book: ‘For Themistocles exhibited his natural force
in the most convincing way, and in this respect he was
especially worthy of admiration beyond any rival. Through
Thucyd. I. 9. As to the translation, see p. 181 infra. 2 Thucyd. Il. 42.
5
Io
15
20
156 DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSUS.
¥ \ > 2 N > \ ¥ a3 > \ Led
ovTe Tpopallav eis avTnv ovlev ovr éemipabav tav Te
Tapayphnpa du ehaytoTns Bovlns Kpatiotos yvepev Kat
Tov pe\\ovTav et TELaTOV TOU yernoOopevov apLaTos
, a A
ELKAOTHS’ Kal a Mev pEeTa YELpas Eyou Kal eEnynoacbar
es @ y a A
olds Te’ Gv S€ aTrELpos Ein, KplVat LKaV@s OVK aTHhdaKTO*
TO TE AMELVOV 7) XELPOV EV T@ Apavet ETL TPOEWPA. Kal | TO
/ > “A / \ la ie \ 4
Evurav eirety pioews pev duvaper, pedéetyns d€ Bpayv-
THTL KpaTLaTos O7) OUTOS avTOTYEdLdle TA S€ovTA eyeveETO.
XVII
¢ Ni / \ A b) Ie
Oi d€ pepaxidders oYnpaticpol Tav avTiérwy TE
Kal TAPOMOLWOEwWY Kal TAapLa@oEwV, eV ols OL TEPL TOV
, v7 > , o An an ,
Dopylav pahiora eTAEOVAT AV, NKLOTA TO YAPAKTHPL TOVTW
/, ‘\ ¥y lal lal
TPOONHKOVTES, AVTTNPAV EXOVTL THY AywynV Ka TOV KOpYsoU
mEtaTOV ahEeaTHKOTL, TOLOVTOL TWEes EloL Tapa TO OVY-
ypadet: ‘hatverar yap n vuv Kadoupévyn “Eas ov Tahar
, > , } \ ȴ pe Ca ACE ES \ \ ,
BeBatws oikovpérn. Kai ert dé: ‘oi pev Kal Tapa Ovvapuy
TOAMYTAL Kal Tapa yvounv KiWduvEevTal: TO Sd VpLEeTEPOV
TS TE Suvdpews evdea TPAkar THS TE yropuns poe Tots
BeBatous mroTevoa, Tov dé Sdewav pydérote olecbar
aTohvOnoecbar’: Kat év ois Tas KatahaBovaoas THY “EX-
Adda cupdopas dia Tas ordces emeE€pyerar rTordde
/ ‘ / \ ‘\ > / > / 4
ypapov: ‘Toma pev yap adoyroTos avdpeia did€rarpos
evouicbn: péddnors dé tpopnOrys dSetia evmpemns, TO S€
808
qn , lal > /, \ \ 5) 4
oadpov TT POOKX 1) [LA | TOU avavopov, KQatL TO ELS ATTAV 809
\ 325% la ) / ) \ lal , x 9
EvveTov emt Trav apyov. moda ToLlavTa Tis av EvpoL
1 és O| ovdéy O. 5 olo ctewy P | etn kpivac Os: émixptvac PGD, émexpiva C.
6 mpoewpar P, mpoewpa padiota QO. 10 mapouotwy libri: corr. Herwerdenus.
mept To yopylay P. Ir tovtTw GCDs: rovrouv To Pa. 12 mpoonkdvtes P |
Kkéuyou P. 14 €ANas Kadoupévn OCDs. 16 post kuwduveural,
verba kal év Tots dewots evéAmides ex O (cp. p. 150, 26 sq. supra) add. CDs.
17 évded P. 18 dé] Te 9. 21 avopia O. 23 mpoo oxnua P.
To avavépov mpdcxnua O et A p. 888, 4 R | mpos dav O et A p. 888, 5 R | érimay
libri. 24 et p. 158, 1 rls av edpo dddAno P.
SECOND LETTER TO AMMAEUS. 157
his native shrewdness, and unaided by knowledge acquired
previously or at the time, he surpassed all others whether in
judging present needs on the spur of the moment or in con-
jecturing the events of the most distant future. He had the
power of explaining whatever he had in hand, and was well
able to form a competent opinion of things of which he
had no experience. He could foresee the better or worse
course, while it was still in the dim future. In a word,
through sheer natural capacity he could, however short the
time for preparation might be, excel all men in improvising
the right thing to be done’,
XVII
The affected figures of antithesis and paromoeosis and
parisosis, in which Gorgias and his followers were particularly
fertile, little become this style, which has an austere cast and
is very far removed from preciosity. But instances of the
following kind are found in the History of Thucydides: ‘ For
it is clear that what is denominated Hellas now-a-days was
not securely populated in ancient days’ And again: ‘ They
are daring beyond their power, and venturesome beyond their
better judgment; but your way is to act below the measure of
your power, and to trust not even the safe conclusions of your
judgment, and to think you will never escape from the
Gangers that threaten you®. Another instance will be found
in the passage in which he describes, in the following terms,
the calamities which had overtaken Greece in consequence of
party-spirit: ‘For reckless audacity was considered loyal
courage ; cautious hesitation was specious cowardice ; mode-
ration was the cloak of unmanliness; universal wisdom was
general ineffectiveness*’ Many passages of this kind will be
1 Thucyd. 1. 138. 2 Thucyd. I. 2.
3 Thucyd. I. 70. 4 Thucyd. II. 82.
ut
158 DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSUS.
ie; > ~ “~ c , / c \ \ \ Qn
dv ons avdrov THs iatopias heyopeva, ixava S€ Kal TavTA
delyparos evexa elpnobar.
7 > , > A X , > 9
Eyes, @ dite Appate, Ta TapaTrnpymata Kal” exa-
oTov avT@v ek THS KOWNS EENTATMEVA TPayyaTeElas, ws
> ,
eTELHTELS.
3 apmuale P | xa[@] cum litura P}. 5 émefnres. edTux@s dupalw CD.
SECOND LETTER TO AMMAEUS. 159
found throughout his History; but those already given will
serve as a sample of the rest.
Thus you have, my dear Ammaeus, the observations
examined, as you desired, one by one, according to the
ordinary method.
NOTES:
Throughout the Notes and Glossary references are given to the lines as well
as to the pages of the text of the 7hree Letters, e.g. 68 14. The abbreviation
mw. UW. (epi Uwous) = Longinus on the Sublime.
fino) UETITER TO AMMAEUS.
The greater part of such notes as are required for the /zrst Letter
to Ammaeus can be most conveniently presented in the form of a
Chronological Table. References to lines and pages of the Letter
are given in the case of events dated by Dionysius himself.
Table of Dates in the Lives of Demosthenes and Aristotle.
> “ . ,
avaykaia mpos Tadta 7 TOV Xpovov diayvwcts.
Dionys. de Dinarcho c. 9.
Olympiad and Archon | B.C.
99, 1. Diotrephes | 384/ Birth of Aristotle, 60 14.
Birth of Demosthenes.
This is the date now generally accepted
for the birth of Demosthenes: see A.
Schaefer, Dem. u. seine Zeit i. 269 n. 2.
The date assigned by Dionysius (56 19) is
381 B.c. He expressly says (60 15) that
Aristotle was tpicly érect Anuoobévous mpec-
Burepos.
99, 3. Evander 382 | Birth of Philip of Macedon.
103, 2. Polyzelus | 367| Aristotle comes to Athens, 60 17.
R. EX
162
DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSUS.
Olympiad and Archon | B.C.
104, I.
107, 2.
107, 3:
107, 4.
108, I.
Timocrates
Molon
Eucharistus
Elpines
Callistratus
Diotimus
Thudemus
Aristodemus
Theellus
|
364
359
356
355
354
353
352
Soe
Apollodorus | 350
Callimachus
Theophilus
349
348
In this archonship Demosthenes, accord-
ing to Dionysius (56 20), entered upon
his seventeenth year. In the lacuna
marked on 56 21, Dionysius possibly
assigned the Speeches against Aphobus
to this period.
Against Onetor.
Callicles, Conon, etc. (approximate date).
Birth of Alexander.
Against Androtion, 56 21—24.
Against the Law of Leptines, 58 t.
On the Navy Boards, 58 5.
Against Timocrates, 58 12.
for the Megalopolitans, 58 13.
Against Aristocrates, 58 18.
first Philippic, 58 15.
“Dionysius of Halicarnassus is mis-
taken in placing the arst Philippic earlier
than the Aréstocrates, though he is right in
assigning both speeches to the same year,
Ol. 107, 1 (352—1 B.c.).” Sandys, First
Philippic and Olynthiacs of Demosthenes,
Pp: 7-
For the Rhodians, 58 20.
Probably this speech should rather be
dated some two years earlier (S. H. Butcher
Demosthenes pp. 43,443; J. B. Bury Hestory
of Greece p. 880).
For Phormion, etc.
Olynthtacs I, [1, [1T: 58 24.
Dionysius arranges (58 26—60 1) the
three Olynthiacs in the order II, III, I.
The point at issue is fully discussed by
Sandys of. ct. pp. lxiii—lxvi. See also
ad Amm.i.c.g. Cp. schol. Demosth. or.
Olynth. ii. init. p. 71, 1 Dind. rodrov (Tov
hoyov) Acoviictos mporarre: Tv ’ONvyOiakGr,
dpxovras Té Twas KaTahéywv Kai Ex TOU mpo-
o.uiou miaToUmevos EK Teptxapelas \nPOEVTOS.
KacxiNuos 6€ avriéyer mp@rov akiay Tov
Tp@Tov vourfduevoy. TO mev Oty KaTa TOUS
dpxovras ev iatopia Ketrat xal tows ovK
axpiBH Tov edeyxov exer, TO OE KaTa TO
mpoolu.ov ovK airapKes els amdderkuv.
Against Metdias, 60 2.
Aristotle upon the death of Plato leaves
Athens, proceeding to Atarneus, which
was ruled by Hermias, 60 19. Fall of
Olynthus, 70 18.
FIRST LETTER TO AMMAEUS: NOTES. 163
Olympiad and Archon | B.C. |
108, 2. Themistocles | 347 | ‘/i/th of Demosthenes’ Speeches against
Philip, 70 20.
By the fifth speech Dionysius means
Philipp. i. 30 ff. On his division of the
First Philippic into two parts, see Sandys,
First Philippic and Olynthiacs of Demos-
thenes, pp. 101, 102.
108, 3. Archias 346 | On the Peace, 72 2.
108, 4. Eubulus 345 Aristotle retires to Mytilene, 60 21.
109, 1. Lyciscus 344| Second Philippic, 724 (‘the seventh
of the speeches against Philip’).
169, 2. Pythodotus | 343} Aristotle with Philip, as Alexander’s
tutor, 60 22.
(Hegesippus) On Halonnesus, 729 (‘the
eighth of the speeches against Philip’).
On the Embassy, 72 11.
109, 3. Sosigenes | 342| On the Chersonese, 7214 (‘the ninth of
the speeches against Philip’).
Third Philippic, 72 20 (‘the tenth of the
speeches against Philip’).
tog, 4. Nicomachus | 341 | [Demosth.] Fourth Philippic, 72 22 (‘the
eleventh of the speeches against
Philip’). Dionysius clearly regards
this and the next-mentioned speech
as genuine.
110, 1. Theophrastus | 340] [Demosth.] Ovat. ad Philippi Epist. 1.,
72 29 (‘the last of the speeches against
Philip’).
End of Philip’s convention with the
Athenians, 74 23.
110, 2. Lysimachides | 339| Philip sends ambassadors to Thebes,
78 29.
110, 3. Chaerondas | 338} Battle of Chaeroneia.
rit, 1. Pythodemus| 336) Alexander succeeds Philip.
111, 2. Evaenetus | 335) Aristotle returns to Athens and teaches
in the Lyceum, 60 25.
112, 3. Aristophon | 330] Ox the Crown, 82 5.
Victory of Alexander at Arbela, 82 7.
113, 4. Anticles 325 Demosthenes accused of corruption,
84 18.
114, 2. Cephisodorus | 323 Death of Alexander, 60 27.
114, 3. Philocles 322) Death of Demosthenes.
Death of Aristotle, 62 1.
ie
164 DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSUS.
For summary of this letter, see p. 25 supra. For Ammaeus, p. 38
supra and C7assical Review xiv. p. 440.
5216 Kiessling (hein. AZus. xxiii. 254) supports his reading
Kal TOV WOOV Evexa Kal TOV Adywv by the apt quotation of Dionys. Hal.
de Thucyd. Cc. 52, THs érvekelas, 7 Kexpyuca Kal mwepi Tors AOyous Kal
mept Ta 70%.
5219 In the older texts of Dionysius, this and the following
lines have been re-written as follows: 7 padov ort mpotepotor Tov
Anpoobevors Néywv at “ApiototéAous Téyvat, Exav petadogacw: 7) Tovvav-
tlov dwpdcas tiv dogav av mpotepov avtos eoxov BeBawow Kal Tor
addws éyvwxota ktA. Reiske (vi. 1130) suggests: Wa 7 tHv dogav, Hv
Tpotepov autos erxov BeBaiws, ed, pabwyv ort......
5420 See p. 41 supra.
564 The words here quoted had become proverbial. They
formed the commencement of the famous palinode (Plat. Phaedr.
243 A) of Stesichorus :—
ovK €ot €rupos Adyos ovTOS:
ovd éBas év vavaly evoéApors,
ovd ikeo épyapa Tpodas.
581 epi tav aredevov, i.e. Ilpos Aertivyy.
58 4 ot TOUS pNTopLKoUs mivakas CvvTakavTes : cp. p. 42 Supra.
5817 dvyadiucav tpinpdv: the Greek seems to suggest the sense
“galleys manned by refugees”’ rather than ‘flying squadron.” But
the words used by Demosthenes (//%z/zff. 1. 25) are Taxelas Tpiypers
déxa. Possibly yaducov is an old corruption of tayewyv.
58 20 @€eAos, not Wecoados, is the name of this archon: cp.
Corp. Inscr. Att. i. 1, 43:
58 23. Tov tpirov. The Greek inclusive reckoning: the date of
Callimachus being 349 B.c., of Theellus 351 B.c.
602 ovveraéato seems to imply that Demosthenes wrote, but
did not deliver, the speech Against Meidias. ‘The reference in xetpo-
toviav is to the vote of censure for contempt of the festival (adcKcety
Tept THY €optyv) passed upon Meidias by the public assembly.
6010 Dionysius’ authority in c. 5 may have been the Chvonica
of Apollodorus, for whom see W. Christ Gesch. der griech. Litteratur*®
p. 608, and Pauly-Wissowa 1. 2857.
6212 The MeOod.a is included by Diogenes Laert. in his list
of the works of Aristotle. It was probably a logical treatise. It is
FIRST LETTER TO AMMAEUS: NOTES. 165
mentioned again in c. 8, and in the passage which is quoted from the
Rhetoric in c. 7.
6220 By ‘instruction’ (ddacxadia) Aristotle means exact or
demonstrative proof. The sense here is, ‘to speak with scientific
accuracy is the part of one who is conveying instruction in the
science.’
6224 évrevéis =‘intercourse, ‘way of dealing with’: cp. Ar.
Metaph. iii. 5, 1009 A, €ote 8 ovy 6 adros tporos mpos mavtas THs
evrevews of pev yap reBods deovrat, ot d€ Bias.
642 Mr Mathews suggests, with much force, that the text given
by Dionysius should stand [with the exception of 76 6€ dawvopevov
awopevos cvAdoyurp0s, which words may have arisen from an inser-
tion at the wrong place of the questionably Aristotelian 76 6€ a.vo-
pevos ovAd\oyirpos, a corruption due to 7 daiverGar deixvvcGar], the
general meaning of the passage being: “ And inasmuch as rhetoric is
demonstrative (or ostensibly demonstrative), therefore just as in the
analytical theory [formal logic] part is induction, and part deduction,
so also here: for argument by analogy is a kind of induction, and
argument supported by reasons is a kind of deduction : in fact, I call
‘enthymeme’ rhetorical syllogism, and ‘example’ rhetorical induc-
tion. Everyone who tries to carry conviction does so by demonstra-
tien, adducing examples or reasoned arguments, and in no other
way: so if we grant that every demonstration is of necessity either
inductive or deductive (and this is clear from the Analytics), it must
be that each [éxarepov, not exacrov] division of the one subject is
identical with one division of the other (i.e. the difference between
theory and practice is only formal, and the essential divisions of each
must agree).”
66 17 Dionysius has in mind Agathon’s lines as quoted in
Arist. Rhet. il. 24 :-—
Tax Gv Tis €ikds avTO TodT «iva A€yor,
Bporoior oA Tvyxave ovK EiKOTA.
Cp. article on ‘ Aristophanes and Agathon’ in Journal of Hellentc
Studies Xx. pp. 44—56.
66 20 For full notes on this and the other passages quoted from
Aristotle’s Reforic by Dionysius in the course of this Letter, reference
may be made to Cope’s commentary (revised and edited by Dr J. E.
Sandys). For kar’ avadoyiav (‘by analogy or resemblance,’ ‘ propor-
tionally’), see Ar. Poetics xxi. 7, where metaphors are defined and
166 DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSUS.
subdivided: peradhopa d€ éotw dvopatos adXotplov érupopa 7) ard TOD
yevous él edos i) ard Tod eidovus Ei TO yévos 7 amd Tod Eidos emi Eldos 7)
Kata TO dvadoyov...... TO d€ avadoyov A€éyw, OTav bpoiws Exn TO SevTEpov
pos TO TpOToV Kal TO TETAPTOV m™pos TO TplTov.
The comparison here attributed to Pericles is not found in the
Funeral Oration as given in the second book of Thucydides ; possibly
it was used by Pericles on another similar occasion (but cp. Cope,
Aristotle's Rhetoric i. 145, 146). Dionysius (or his manuscripts)
omits the words “so Leptines said, with reference to the Lacedae-
monians, that he would not have the Athenians look calmly on when
Greece was robbed of one of her eyes,” for which words see Cope 1.
112.—The conjecture ayxovra (cp. Ael. de Nat. Animalium x. 48,
eis TVLyjLa GyXwv) seems to account for both adyayovra and €xovra.
686 Philochorus: flor. 306—260B.c. For his Aistory of Attica,
see W. Christ, Gesch. d. griech. Litt.® pp. 553, 554; for the Atthides
generally, Miller / A. G. 1. Ixxxi ff., 3509 ff.
68 10 The hiatus of eighteen letters at this point is not recog-
nised in BPs. Possibly, as A. Schaefer suggests (Dem. u. seine Zeit i.”
p- 132 n. 1), the name of the proposer has fallen out, e.g. Anpo-
abevovs ypawyarros.
70 7 pets de “EAAnvixas. The three speeches thus indicated are:
On the Symmortes, For the Megalopolitans, and For the Rhodians.
They bore the title ‘Hellenic,’ in contradistinction to those against
Philip.—The five speeches to which reference is made in the following
clause are the Androtion, Leptines, Meidias, Aristocrates, Timocrates.
74.9 év 7H mpos “Appodior, sc. déky Or arodoyia. ‘This case is also
known as 7) wept THs <ikovos dikn. It belongs to the year 371 B.c., and
turns on the award of a statue to Iphicrates in honour of his defeat
of the Spartan mora in 392 B.c. The grant was opposed by Harmo-
dius, a descendant of the famous liberator, against whom Iphicrates
defended himself. The speech Iphicrates delivered was, according
to some critics, composed by Lysias ; but this view Dionysius rejects,
in the de Lyséa c. 12, on grounds of style and chronology. Aristotle
here appears to attribute it to Iphicrates himself.
78 10 It is worth special remark that the manuscripts of
Dionysius, as well as those of Demosthenes, give ovprvevoovtwv
pov av.
80 23 “This is the only place in which the zame of Demo-
sthenes appears in Aristotle’s Rheforic. See on this subject Introd.
FIRST LETTER TO AMMAEUS: NOTES. 167
[i.e. Cope’s Zntroduction to Aristotle's Rhetoric\ pp. 45, 46, and note 2.
In ii. 23, 18, a few words of his are quoted, but without the author’s
name. ‘The Demosthenes mentioned in iil. 4, 3 is probably not the
great orator.” Cope, Aristot. Rhet. il. p. 316.
8211 evrerevyws: the form évrervynxws is found in de adm. vt
dtc. in Dem. c. 13.
841 After rovotrov the passage runs thus in Aristot. Pez. ii. 23, 3:
Kai ovdev KwAvel, Worep ev TH AXxpaiwve TO Meodexrov
pentepa de THY oHV ov Tis eotvyer Bpotdy ;
dynoi 8 aroxpwopevos
a\Aa diataovra yp oKoretv:
epomerns O€ THs AAdeoi Bolas Tas, broAaBuv yor
Thv pev Oavety expwav, ewe S€ py KTavely.
The point is that it was not for Alcmaeon, her son, to slay Eriphyle,
even though she had caused the death of his father.
843 Kai olov 4 Tepl...... Nexavopa. ‘This is cited by Dion.
Halicarn., Ep. i. ad Amm. c. 12, as a proof that Aristotle was
acquainted with and quoted the speeches of Demosthenes, referring
it to the case (against Aeschines) for the Crown. In doing so he
omits wept. Of course 4 wepi Anpoobévous diky cannot have this
meaning: and it is most probable that it is not the orator that is here
referred to, but Thucydides’ general, or some other person of the
name. Neither is anything known of Nicanor and his murderers,”
Cope, Avzstot. Rhet. i. p. 244. It seems probable that the words
kal Tav amoxtewavtwv Nixavopa have been wrongly repeated in the
text of Dionysius. In the original passage of the AAeforic it has
sometimes been thought that Nixodypov should be read in place
o Nuxavopa (cp. A. Schaefer, Dem. u. s. Zeit? ii. 104 n. 4).
8417 epi tHs tov Swpwv. For the ellipse, cp. 749 supra.
Dionysius did not believe (cp. de adm. vi dic. in Dem. c. 57) in the
genuineness of an avodoyia tav dwpwv attributed to Demosthenes.
168 DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSUS.
LETLER TOB@POMEEIUS:
Summary, p. 27 supra. Gnaeus Pompeius Geminus, p. 38 supra
and Classical Review xiv. p. 439.
88 5 . Zeno, p. 38 supra and Classical Review xiv. p. 440.
90 6 as ovdey ypyua tYywwrepov. Cp. de Thucyd. c. 2, tév amo
mavros ToD BeAtiorov KpwvovTwv Ta TpdypaTa Kal pydev HYOUMEVWY XpHHLA
Tyuwtepov THS GAnOecas. An iambic fragment: cp. Soph. Avzztig. 702
for the form. Another poetical reminiscence on 100 17 infra.
909 Zoilus: cp. 7. vw. p. 243. Mentioned also p. 96 5 supra,
and in de Jsaeo c. 20, de adm. vi dic. in Dem. c. 8. Cp. Ael. Var.
Hist. xi. 10: Zuitdos 6 “ApdutoXirys, 6 Kat cis “Opnpov ypawas Kat «is
IlAdrwva Kai eis GAXovs, TloAuKpatous pev axovatis éyéveto* ovtos be
6 IloAvkparns Kal tiv Katyyoplav éypae THY Kata YwKparovs.
90 20 If dyow is read with the mss., it may be interpreted ‘‘it
will be said”: cp. az¢ and inguit introducing objections.
S25 Cp wit erOd anvil Oye.
92 24 With cis tHv trdfeow cp. a passage in the Phaedrus 269 E
which Dionysius may have had in mind: kwédvvever, © apiore, eikdTws
6 IepixAjs mavtwv teAewTatos eis THY pyTopiKyv yeverGar.—For the
Adyos *Epwtixkés and the question of its genuineness, see Sandys
Orat. xiv. n. 3, and Jebb AZZ. Or. i. 305—310 (also pp. 165, 166
ibid. ).
94 9 Dionysius may be referring specially to the following
passages: Thrasymachus, “ep. 1. 336 ff.; Prodicus, Protag. 314 ff. ;
Protagoras, zdzd.; Hippias, zbéd. (cp. the Lesser Hippias); Gorgias
and Polus, Gorgias 461 ff.; Parmenides, Soph. 242 (hardly Theaet.
183 E); Theodorus, Phaedrus 266 ff.
94 27 For yeved as a chronological term, see Dodwell’s elaborate
discussion in Reiske, Déonys. Halic. Antig. Rom. i. pp. x\vi ff.
96 4,5 Cephisodorus: cp. pp. 41, 54 supra, de Jsocr. c. 18,
de Isaeo c. 19. Athen. ll. 60 E: Kydicddwpos 6 “Icoxpatouvs pabytys
év Tots Kata “ApiototéAous, téeagapa 6 éoti tatta BuBXAia, éexurya TO
pirocddy ws od Tomoavre Noyou a€tov 76 Tapoipias GOpoiaat, Avtipavous
Ohov romjoavtos dpaya 1d ervypapopevov Llapouystor.— Theopompus.
Athen. xi. 508 C: kat yap Oedropros 6 Xios év TH kata THS LAdTwvos
LETTER TO POMPEIUS: NOTES. 169
diatpiBis “ rovs roAXOvs (Pyot) tdv diaddywv avrod axpelovs Kat Wevdeis
av Tis evpot: dAXoTpiovs b€ Tos mAéious, OvTas ex TOV 'ApiotirTov
diatprBav, eviovs d€ Kak tHv AvricHevous, TOAXOUS b€ KaK TOV Bpvcwvos
tov HpaxAewrov.”—Zoilus: see preceding page.—//ippodamas: of un-
certain identity.— Demetrius: Demetrius Phalereus, p. 98 |. 23 supra.
9615 ev tH wepi Tav “AtTiKwV Tpaypateia pyTopwv: p. 6 supra.
9617 The points in which this quotation differs from the
original in de adm. vi dic. in Dem. cc. v—vil. deserve attention
because of the light they throw on Dionysius’ views of exact
reproduction.
96 19 Kafazep cipytat pro. tpotepov: probably in the lost portion
of the de adm. vi dic. tn Dem.
98 4 The semi-poetical word avpa, which occurs again at the
end of c. 4, may well be a reminiscence of Plato: Wa wo7ep év
e n , > A c , IN \ ? ° c , bal > ty
DyLELVo™ TOT OiKODVTES OB VEOL ATO TavTOS wWhEAWVTAL, b7dHEV av abTots
> ‘ - cal » A A ” * ‘ > ‘ , a ”
aro Tov KahaOv Epywv 7) Tpos Ow 7) Tpos akonV TL TpoTBary WaTEp avpa
depovea urd ypyotav toTwv dyleav, Kai evOds éx Taidwvy AavOavy eis
dpmovornta te Kal didiav Kal Evudwviav ro KaAo oyw ayovoa. Plat.
Rep. ili. 401 C.
98 22 «Kai wodds 6 TeAeryns (= TeAcoTHs, ‘mMystery-monger’) éorw
év Tois Tovovros tap aire. This remarkable expression may be
illustrated by the following passages: roAv 1o wabytixov év ekeivots
eivac O€t...... Tas 6 TOV TOLOUTWY GXNMATwWV KOTpoS TOAUs €oTL Tap avTo,
de Lsocr. c. 2. tovtwv yap tav Anpov tepeds exeivos avyjp, de Comp. Cc. 4.
new er Tas TeAeTas TOD Adyov, wid. c. 25 (quoted on p. Ig supra).
102 4 The passage which immediately follows the words «iAnde
70 BuBXtov in de adm. vi dic. in Dem. c. 7 is: ev yap 8) TO ovyypappare
4 AAT S og » \ , > \ \ \ tn) : Ave eo
ToUTw TOAAHV pev Wpav Exel Kal XapiTwv eoTl perTA TA TPWTA TavTL
pire Paidpe, rot dy Kai roGev ; Hapa Avotov, © Swxpates, Tod Kepadov.
, 67) ‘\ , WE 4 ‘\ ‘ > ‘al } ,
Topevopar 81 mpos tepitatov é&w Telxovs. ovxvov yap exet diéTpula
xpovev Kabnevos €€ Ewhwvod’ péxpt THS avayvworews TOD AvoraKod Oyou
Kal peta Tv avayvwow ews Twvds. P, waorep e€ aépos evdiov Kat
arabepod mods ave“os Katappayets, TapatTe TO Kabapov THs ppacews
> ‘ > la > , > , ? > , c* ,
és mountikny expepwv azreipoxadiav, evbevd’ apédpevos: ‘"Ayere 4y,
Modoar, cite dv Wdns eidos A€yerar cite Sia yévos TO Atytwv jrovorKdv
Tavrny eoxete THY eTwvupiav, Lip por AaBerGe Tod piGov.’ Ste dE Wodor
~ ? ~ Mea! ‘ , , > / ‘ a“ ‘ > - ”
Tait cici Kal dibvpap Bor, Kourov Gvopatwv oAvv votv dé 6Acyov ExovTes,
oN cage) ‘ ‘ Cy kas 24, ” Lv cad U »” x
avtos épet. dueEov yap, ad’ 7s aitias pws éréby TH Taber Tovvopa, Kal
THOSE xpyoapevos: ‘“H yap avev Aoyou doéys eri tayabdv Sppworns
170 DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSUS.
Kpatrnoaca eriGupia, tpos ySov7v ayovta KadXovs Kai TOV EavTAS oVY-
yevov éerbyidv, ert gwpnatov KadAos eppwmevos pwobciva viknoaca
aywyn ar avTHS THS pouns eTwVULLAV Aa Botoa Epos exAn On’ Kal Too av-
THV ekpnx’vas Tepippacw 6Xiyous Tots 6vopact dvvayevov TepknpOnvar
Tpaywatos eriAapPavetar THS Ukaipias THS aiTos avTOd Kat pyar ‘ SvyH
TOW fLOU AKOVE. TO OVTL yap Geios Elvat Eoikev 6 TOTOS. WoT eday apa
TodAakts vupporntTos yévwpat TPoLVvTos Tod Aoyou, wy Oavpacys. Tae
vov yap OUKETL TOppw diGvpapBov TLVOV pbeyyopau.’ “For in this
composition the opening words have great beauty and are full of
charm. ‘My dear Phaedrus, whither pray are you going, and whence
come you?—I have come from Lysias the son of Cephalus,
Socrates, and am going for a walk outside the walls. For I have
spent a long time at his house, and have been sitting down since
early morning.’ The whole passage is of the same kind till the
reading of the speech of Lysias, and afier that up to a certain point.
Then as though some great storm were to burst from a calm and
cloudless sky, he mars the purity of the diction and rushes into
tasteless and poetic language, beginning thus: ‘Come, O ye Muses,
melodious (Acyevar) as ye are called, whether you have received this
title from the character of your song, or because the Ligyans (Avjiwv)
are a musical race, with me in the story join!’ Plato himself will
tell us that these are noisy dithyrambs, full of high-sounding words
but signifying little. For he proceeds to seek the cause why Love
was the name assigned to the emotion in question, and gives the
following explanation: ‘The irrational desire which overmasters
the tendency of opinion towards what is right, and leads to the
enjoyment of beauty and of the desires, the desires which are her
own kith and kin,—this desire, I say, marching victoriously against
personal beauty is vigorously invigorated and from this very vigour
receives the title of Love (pwn, epws).’ And having described in
this lengthy periphrasis a thing that could have been put in a few
words, he assails his own want of sobriety and says: ‘Listen to me,
then, in silence; for in very truth the place seems sacred; so that
you must not be surprised if perchance, as the discussion proceeds,
I am seized with frenzy, for even my present utterance attains to
something like a dithyrambic strain.’”—After the above excerpts
from the Phaedrus (227 A, 237 A, 238 B, 238 D: with sundry di-
vergencies of reading) there follows this comment: <rad’ oiy t>r
dAAwv, add Tois avTov Aoyous GAoKopeba <KarTa Tijv Tpaywdi>ayv,
daipoviwrare IlXkatwv, duvpapBwv Wodovs Kai Anpovs HyarynKOTEs.
BETTE LO POMPETOS: NOTES. 171
How much of this passage of the de adm. vi dtc. in Demosth. was
reproduced in the £f. ad Cn. Pomp. we cannot tell. It is possible
that the loss is due to the similarity of opening in the sentences év yap
O) TO ovyypappare KTA. and ev yap Tov'rots KTH.
For the aesthetic point, cp. Thompson’s edition of the Paedrus,
p- 25: ‘‘It is to this part of the dialogue that Aristotle alludes, “er.
iil. 7, 11, where he says that a high-flown poetical diction is admissible
in prose, (1) when the feelings of the audience have been wrought to
a high pitch by the speaker, or (2) when such style is adopted per’
eipwvetas, Orep Dopyias éroie, kai Ta ev TG Paidpw. ‘This criticism, for
its taste and discernment, stands in favourable contrast with that
of Dionysius Halic., who is sorely scandalized by the ‘turbid and
obscure, and disagreeably poetical style’ which, as he thinks, is
a grievous change for the worse from the gracefulness of the intro-
ductory scene.” .
1029 Cp. Diog. Laert. ili. 37, dyoti & “ApiororéAns tHv TGV oywv
ideay abrod petasd Tompatos eivat kai reCovd Aoyov. Quintil. Zzst. Orat.
x. 1, 81 “‘multum enim supra prosam orationem et quam Graeci
pedestrem vocant surgit: ut mihi non hominis ingenio sed quodam
Delphico videatur oraculo instinctus.” Grote, P/avo i. 213.
104 t1o—16 Cp. pp. 27, 28, 38 supra.
104 21—24 Cp. Antig. Rom. 1. 1, (det) mpadrov pev vrobeces
aipetoGar Karas Kai peyadompereis, kal Todd wdédevav Tois avayvwoo-
pevos hepovoras.
106 3 By the words xai azep aitros eipyxe Dionysius wishes to
indicate that the opening of the History of Herodotus is familiar to
all: “Hpoddrov “AXtxapyvnooéos toropins amddekus d€* Ws pyte TA yevo-
peva e avOpuruv TO xpovw eéitnra yeryntat, pyre epya peyada TE Kal
Gwvpacra, Ta pev "EAAnot, Ta 5€ BapBaporor arodexGevta, axrea yernTa
ta Te adda Kal dv Hv aitinv éro\eunoav a\Andowot.
106 27, 28 Both Hellanicus and Charon had written histories
entitled Mepoua: see W. Christ, Gesch. der griech. Litt.’, pp. 324, 5.
Charon, Pauly-Wissowa, ill. pp. 2179, 2180.
108 23 ff. Cp. de Thucyd. c. 16, dv tpovoovpevos Eouxey ated tiv
iotopiav Katadureiv, ws Kai Kpatiurmos 6 ovvakpacas avT@ Kal Ta Tapa-
AePOara v7’ aitod cvvayayov yéypader, ov povov Tats mpakerw avTas
eurodwv yeyerqobar A€ywv, AAAG Kal Tots akovovow dxAnpas €ivat.
110 1 tots axovovor. Cp. p. 33 n. 1 supra, and Plin. £/. v. 8, 11,
“nam plurimum refert, ut Thucydides ait, «rjpa sit an aywvopa ;
quorum alterum oratio, alterum historia est.”
172 DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASS US.
1141 The division here suggested is something of the following
kind :—
I. dperat dvayKaiat, viz.
(1) 9 xafapa rots dvopacr Kai tov “EXAnviKOv xapaxTypa
owlovoa.
(2) cadyvea.
(3) ovvtopia.
II. dperai ériPeror, viz.
(1) évapyeva.
(2) 9 tav nOdv Te Kai rabdv pipnors.
e XN 4 \X 6 ‘ > , ~ ~
(3) at TO péya Kal Oavpactov éxpaivovear THs KaTacKevAs
dperal (e.g. BWos, kaAAippyyooivyn, TeLvooyia, peya)o-
TpeTreia),
€ M > \ ‘ \ “4 \ \ c / /
(4) at tHv loxby Kal Tov TOvov Kal Tas bpoLoTpoToUs duVapLets
THs ppdoews aperat mepréxovoar (e.g. Bapos, TO éppw-
pevov, TO evarywvuov).
(5) O0v7) Kat rea Kat Trépis (TépYyis = yapis, appodity) Kal
ai Gmovoyevets aperai.
(6) macdv ev NOyous apetov y KUpLwTaTn TO TpEerov (perhaps
this virtue should be placed in a class of its own).
Cp. de Thucyd. c. 23, Tas pev ovv avayKkatas apeTas 4 Ais adTwOV TaVTwY
exe (kal yap Kafapa Kal cadis Kal oivTOMOs eoTW aToXpwvTws, cwCovTa
\ DANY ‘epel, a Ni , a \ N55 , > e
Tov id.vov éxaatn THs diaé€ktTov yapakTnpa)* Tas 6 emubérous, e& ov
padiota diadyos 7 TOD pytopos yivetar Svvapis, OTE aTacas ovTE «is
” c , > 2> 7 Noy Zane, , \ ,
axpov nkovoas, aAN’ 6Avyas Kal ért Bpaxv, vos A€yw Kai KaAALppyuLoovvnY
‘ , \ , 39 \ / 29 , 2a
Kal ovepvodoyiav KaL peyadonperear: OvoE on) TOVOV ovoe Bapos ovoe
mabos dveyeipov Tov vody ovdE TO eppwpevov Kal évaywviov Tvetpa, EE OV 1H
kadoupevn yiverat deworys. Ernest, Lexicon Technolog. Graecorum
Rhetoricae, p. 16: “avaykatas apetas THs A€Eews, Dionys. Iud. Thue.
22. p. 862 appellat eas elocutionis virtutes, quas in omnibus sermo-
nibus adhiberi oportet, quales sunt, puritas, perspicuitas, brevitas.
His contrariae sunt aperat émiGero., adiectitiae, in quibus cernitur
artificium et vis oratoria, ut sublimitas, elegantia, gravitas, magnifi-
centia, adfectuum notatio etc. quas enumerat ipse cap. 23. p. 865.
Sic Plut. in Cat. 18 rots repirrots Ta avayxaia opponit.” id. 7b. p. 123:
“éxifetros ppacis, quae eadem est katecxevacpevyn, elaborata, arte
facta, ornamentis oratorils instructa.”
LETTER TO POMPEIUS: NOTES. 173
114.5 The second point in the comparison between Herodotus
and Thucydides has been lost. That it was cagyveca is clear from
de Vet. Cens. (de Imitat.), p. 425 R. (Us. p. 22: see next note but
two): THs capyveias 5€ dvapdioByTyTws “Hpoddrw 70 Karopbwpa dedorat.
114 28 Caecilius, p. 37 supra.
116 1,2 Cf. the passages quoted p. 176 infra from Marcellinus
Vit. Thucyd.; and Demetrius 7. épp. 215 (of Ctesias), kai oAws de O
Tours ovTos: TouTyv yap avdrov Kadoiy dv Tis €ixoTws evapyetas
Syprovpyos eorw ev TH ypady cupracy.
116 7 With the foregoing passage may be compared de Jmit.
ii. c. 3, 1 (Us. pp. 22, 23): Tay peévtor ocvyypapéwv “Hpodoros pev
éfeipyaotar BéAtiov TO mpayypariKov eloos' TO O€ AEKTLK@ OTE pev
aAcoventet Movxvdidys, wore S€ EuTarw: eotw B ev ols eLwwotvTa. TH
pev yap axpiBela TOv dvopatov, HS €kaTEpoL TponpyvrTat SiadrEKTov,
aroawlovat TO idiov' THS Tadynveias dE avapdusBntyTws “Hpoddtw 70
katépOwua SéSora. Kal TO pev ovVTOMOV ETL Tapa @ovxvdidy, To be
évapyés Tapa apdorepos. €v pevTor Tois HOiKOIs Kparel 6 “Hpddoros, év
St trois rabyrixots 6 Movkvdidyns. maw KadArAoyia Kal peyadompereta
dradepovtw ovdev aAAyjAwv, GAN Exatepor ToUTWV TE KQL TWVY TOLOUTMWVY
aperav Kparodor. pwpyn S& Kal ioxwe Kai ToOvw Kal TO TepiTTd Kat
ToAVTXNMATiGTH TapNnvooKipyTe @ovkvdidns: ndovy S€ Kat meHot Kat
xapire kal TO [ddedet] avdrodvet [aBacavictw| paxpO d.eveyxovta Tov
‘Hpodoroy etpicxopev: Os Kal peta TOvTWY TO Tperov <mepi> Tpay-
paretay Kal tpoowrorouav ahov TUVTETPKEV.
mepl Gv Kal Erepos éorar xatpds. It is probable that these words
refer chiefly to the de Zhucyd. and the ad Amm. ii.
116 8 With chapters 1v. and v. may be compared de Jmit.
ii. c. 3, 2 (Us. pp. 23—25).
116 12 It is to be noted that the Vita Agesilaz is not mentioned
in the following short list of Xenophon’s historical writings.
116 14 A true Zrkon Basilike, in fact.
116 17 Possibly the original reading was tH ioropiav jy, with a
gloss “EAAnvexyv.
1183 The enumeration of qualities is somewhat fuller in de Zmut.
ii. C. 3, 2: exAexrixds pev yap Kal kabapos Tois dvdpact, Kal rads Kal
évapyys, Kal Kata tiv otvberw dvs Kal evyapis, ws Kai melov Exe,
K.T.A.
118 ro It is probable that some words introducing the topic of
70 mpérov have dropped out between oBérvutar and paxporepos.
174 DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSUS.
118 14 Philistus: cp. 7. ww. p. 237. Cic. Ep. ad Quintum
Fratrem ii. 13, 4 (Tyrrell ii. 116): ‘‘Siculus ille capitalis, creber,
acutus, brevis, paene pusillus Thucydides, sed utros eius habueris
libros (duo enim sunt corpora) an utrosque nescio. me magis de
Dionysio delectat. ipse est enim veterator magnus, et perfamiliaris
Philisto Dionysius.” Cic. de Orat. li. 13, 56: “ Hune (sc. Thuc.)
consecutus est Syracosius Philistus, qui, cum Dionysii tyranni familiar-
issimus esset, Otium suum consumpsit in historia scribenda, maximeque
Thucydidem est, sicut mihi videtur, imitatus.’’ Wilkins’ notes on
the last passage should be consulted.
120 2 In the parallel passage of de Jmit. ii. c. 3, 2 wepvorns is
also specified: od pay dpotws (sc. arewagato) THY KaAdAoylav Kal THY
oweuvotyta Kai THY adGoviay Tov evOvynuatwrv, KTA.
120 14—16 More fully in de Jmit. l.c.: puxpos 8€ éort Kat
Tamewvos KomLoH Tals exppacerw yToL TOTwY 7} vavpayiov 7 meldv
Tapatakewy 7) oikitpod Todewr.
120 23 Theopompus: cp. de Lmit. ii. c. 3, 3. See also x. wy.
p. 242. Quintil. Zzst. Ova? x. 1, 74: “Theopompus: his) (ce
Herodoto et Thucydidi) proximus ut in historia praedictis minor, ita
oratori magis similis, ut qui, antequam est ad hoc opus sollicitatus,
diu fuerit orator.” Cic. de Orvat. i. 13, 57 (with Wilkins’ notes):
“‘postea vero ex Clarissima quasi rhetoris officina duo praestantes
ingenio, Theopompus et Ephorus ab Isocrate magistro impulsi se ad
historiam contulerunt ; caussas omnino nunquam attigerunt.”
120 26 Xuaxas. A. Schaefer Dem. u. seine Zeit iii. 306, n. 2.
122 3, 4 W. Christ, Gesch. d. griech. Litt.® p. 362: “Seine
beiden grossen historischen Werke waren die Hellenika in 12 B.,
welche, an Thukydides anknipfend, die Geschichte von 410—394
oder bis zur Schlacht von Knidos behandelten, und die Philippika
in 58 B., welche die Regierung des Konigs Philippos von Make-
donien zum Mittelpunkt hatten, aber in zahlreichen und ausgedehnten
Digressionen die ganze Zeitgeschichte umfassten ; so enthielten die-
selben 3 Bucher sikilische Geschichte (Diod. 16, 71), eine Musterung
der Demagogen Athens, einen Abschnitt wunderbarer Geschichten
(im 1o B.), einen Exkurs uber die aus Delphi geraubten Schiatze.”
122 27 Kai réAy. ‘Fort. kat 46y, vel xamitydedpara, Vulgata
certe lectio ferri nequit,” Herwerden, p. 44. But cp. Kaibel Hermes
xx. p. 510: ‘Memnon schrieb (sicherlich im ersten Jahrhundert
nach Christus) die Geschichte seiner Vaterstadt Heraklea mit dem
LETTER FO POMPEIUS: NOTES. ty
besonderen Zweck die zpages, nn, Bio. und réAyn der dortigen
Tyrannen zu schildern. Dieser moralische Zweck unterschied ihn
von seiner Quelle Nymphis ; er wird dadurch dem Plutarch ahnlicher
als irgend einem Historiker.”
124 16 80 Kal Baoxavos xrA. Cp. Luc. de hist. conscrib. 59, Kai
tiv aityy Oeorourw airiav ees piratexOynpovws KatnyopodvT. TaV
trciotwv Kal diatpiBynv Towovpevy TO Tpaypa, Ws KaTyyopely padAov 7
ioropely Ta rempayy.LEeva.
126 8 ris re ovprroKns KkTA. The reference is to Theopompus’
excessive anxiety to avoid hiatus. Cp. Cic. Orat. 151: ‘fin quo
quidam Theopompum etiam reprehendunt, quod eas litteras (sc.
vocales) tanto opere fugerit.” Quintil. 7st. Ora? ix. 4, 35: “nimios-
que non immerito in hac cura putant omnes Isocratem secutos,
praecipueque Theopompum.”
SeeovD LETTER TO, AMMAEUS.
Summary, p. 30 supra. Ammacus, p. 38 supra and Classical
Review xiv. p. 440.
130 12 Aelius Tubero, p. 34 supra and Classical Review xiv.
Pp. 441.
1382 4 16 didackadixov cxjpa AaBov avti Tod émiderxtiKod. Usener
and Radermacher, against the authority of P 1741 and all other
manuscripts, change éridecxtexod into amodextixod. But Ammaeus
did not desire the azode(fets (‘demonstrations,’ ‘illustrations,’ p. 130,
l. 13) of the de Thucydide to be dropped ; he merely wished that the
illustrations should follow close upon the special point to be
illustrated. Dionysius himself in the de Zhucyd. c. 25 (the chapter
immediately following the long passage quoted in ad Ammi. ii. c. 2)
clearly defines the method he intends to follow in that treatise:
Tpoewpynuevov S€ TovTwv Kehatawodws eri Tas amodeiLers avTav wpa
TperecGat. rouoopar S€ ov xwpis tirep Exaotns idéas Tov Adyov,
brordtrwv aitais tiv Oovkvodidov A€~w, AAA KaTa TepLoXas TLvas Kal
ToTous, méepy AapBavov THs Te Supynoews Kal TaV PyTopEedy Kal Tapart-
Geis TolS TE TPAy [LAT LKOLS Kal Tots NeKTLKOLS KatopOupacw 7 apapTHnwact
Tas aitias, dv as Toatra éort. He prefers, that is, to treat his subject
in the epideictic style of an essayist, rather than in the disjointed
176 DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSUS.
manner of a schoolmaster who must care more for paedagogic effective-
ness than for literary form. Compare also de adm. vi dic. in Dem.
“ , ~~ > ” QA > a 7 ¢ , c
G. 46: TapadcelyLaTwv 0 OUK OLO[LAL Oelv evtavda, (VQ {LOL peilova TLOTLV O
Aoyos TaV Epywv Tois PyTopos éLeraLopevwr, ei ToLvadTa eat, ota €yw.
Tod yap <av> 7 ovvTakis TO pwKos aBou, Kai d€os, uy ToTE eis TOUS
\ > “ a > mm ¢ a
TX OALKOUS ex By) XGPQAKTIPAS EK TWV VTOLVYUATLATLWV, and de Comp. Verb.
C. 22: evtadéa n pev trddeots aryTer TOANA Tapacyxéeobat TOV €cipnmevov
ta, Nez. Xow, > * > \ ¢ , rr ie a
ExaTTOV Tapade(ypmara, Kal tows ovK av andis 6 Aoyos eyévero, ToAAOts
worep avert moiktAAopevos Tots éapivois. aA’ dréppetpov eer
dhavnce6 ) ovv t \ukov padXAov 7) rN y
ai 7) € al TO OvvTaypa, KQL oxo LKOL pas AOL 1) TApay ye |LATLKOV,
132 14 So p. 134, 1. 16, zourod rpdrov évefovota~wy. Cp. ©
Mareellinus Vita Thucyd. 35, Cndwrns d5€ yéyovey 6 Oovkvdidns «is pev
, € , Oo 7 > ‘A ‘ wn
TV oikovoniay “Oprypov, Iwéapov 8 «is To peyadodves Kal tYynAov Tod
a 3 Fo , NBS , ¢ ” DiSeue 7 \
XapakTHpos: 37, padiora oe TavTwy, OTEp Eiopev, ECyAWoEV “Opnpov Kat
THS TEpt THY GVVOETW axpiBeias, THS T iaxVvos THS KaTa THY EppHvetay Kal
Tov KahAovs Kal TOU Taxous: 41, dua y ovv TO bYyAOV 6 BovKvdidys Kat
- , > , /& \ lal / \ ‘\
momtikais 7oAAakis é€xypyoato A€Eeou Kal pretadopais tTisiv. epi oe
, col Lal > /, , > i A > ‘ \ >
Tacyns THS Tvyypadys €troAunoav tives arodyvacba OTL av’To TO Eidos
a —~ > »” c a > \ a“
THS Tvyypapys ovK EoTL pyTopiKns ara TouNTiKNs.
132 19 Cp. Marcellinus Vit. Thucyd. 56, woixtAwraros ev év Tots
7s A€Lews oXHpacr, Kata d€ THY duavotay TovvavTiov acxnpaTLTToOs.—
Dionysius here omits (see critical footnote) the question of the
‘composition’ of Thucydides, which he treats fully in de Comp.
C22:
1384 18 Winifred Warren, American Journal of Philology, xx.
Pp: 317: “‘tomuxdv is the reading of the manuscripts here and in the
De Thucyd. Ludicium. Kriiger wrote tpotuxeév, and has been followed
by van Herwerden and Usener. It seems possible, however, to
keep the manuscript reading and understand a reference to Thucy-
dides’ proleptic use of prepositions and adverbs of place, e.g. . 5,
29; Vv. 52, 11. ‘This is favoured by the coupling with xpovuv.”
136 1 Cp. Marcell. 36, éCyAwae 8 ex dALyov, ds pynow “AvtvAXos,
\ \ / lal , , WN \ > , ~ > 4
Kat Tas Dopyiov Tod Acovtivov rapitwces Kal Tas avTiecels TOV OVOMATwV
29> 4 > > an a QA ~~ ITD \ / QA
eOoKiyovoas KaT €KElvo Kalpod Tapa Tors “EAAnoL, Kal pevTOL Kal
IIpodikov tod Ketov ryv ert tots dvépacw axpifodoyiav.
136 3 Licymnius. Cp. de adm. vi dic. in Dem. c. 26, ob Auxipriot
: po i
«tA., and Aristot. Afhet. ili. 12, Baoralovrar dé of avayvworikol, otov
Xaip/ pov (axpiBns yap worep Aoyoypados) kat Ackvprvos Tov diBvpapBo-
TTOLWYV.
SECOND LETLIER TO AMMAEUS: NOTES. 177
136 5 Cp. Marcell. 56, odrdyous dvopace ToAAA Tpaypata dydov :
50, ai de Bpayvrynres Oavpacrtal Kai Hv NELewv ot OES TAELOVES: 53, WEAEL
d€ adra...... Bpaxitytos ovvrasews.
18611. Cp. Marcell. 51, roAvedis 8 ev trois oxnpact, TA OAKS
Kai tov Topyiov trod Aeovtivov pupovpevos, Taxds €v Tals onpaciats,
mukpos €v Tais avotnpotnow.—On the general question of the style of
Thucydides (with especial reference to his employment of poetical or
novel words and constructions), valuable articles, by C. F. Smith and
J. D. Wolcott, will be found in the Zvansactions and Proceedings
of the American Philological Association (years 1891, 1894, 1898).
136 I4 euBples : cp. Marcell. 59, TO 6€ TS cvvOecews TPAXUTNTOS
[dv] peorov Kat euBpibes Kat brepBarixor, éviore be aaaés : 56, euPpibes
THY ppacw.
136 19—23 dxparpvés. Thucyd. i. 19, pera axparpvods THs oup-
paxius (schol. ore elyov aBdaByn rHv Tov TavTwv Trppaxiav): 1. 52,
Tpooryeyevnpevas Te vais ex tov “AOnvadv axpaipvets (schol. aBdaPets,
akepavopaveis).
émudoyiopos. This word does not occur in our text of Thucydides,
nor is it one which would be likely to be considered obscure by
Dionysius, who himself uses the corresponding verb érwWoyiCopar
in £f. ad Pomp. c. 1. Usener suggests that the word written by
Dionysius was éryAvrys (Thucyd. i. 9: cp. Marcell. 52).
mepory. Thucyd. iv. 87, ovrw rodAnv Teprwmnv Tov nyiv és Ta
peywota diapopwv rrovovpeba, where the schol. explains avti tod crepi-
oKxelw 7 repiaOpnow 7 mpovoiay 7 e&éraow. Cp. Phot. Zex. p. 425, 13:
TEpLwTH Kal mLigvVNn Kal TUOTLS TavTa TaiTa ywTTWdy Tapa
@ovkvdidn. Karel d€ Teprwrnv THY hpovtida Kal THY TepicKEY, Od TOV
Torov ws “Opnpos.
avaxwxy. Thucyd. i. 40, Kepxvupatous d€ otde bv avoxwyns ruwroT
éyeveoOe. Here and elsewhere (i. 66, ili. 4, iv. 38, 117, v. 25, 26, 32,
vili. 87) in Thucydides the correct form seems to be avoxwxy. But
avaxwxy was used by Dionysius and the grammarians. Cp. schol. on
Thucyd. Zc, dvaxwyy éorw cipyvn tpocKatpos, TOAELoV woivovea, olov 7
pukpa Tod Toe“ov avaBAnots, Tapa TO avw Exew TAS aKwKas TOV dopaTwr.
kohipm. Thucyd. 1. 92, ovdé yap érl koAvuy GAA yvwopns Tapavere
dGev TO Kowd experBedoavto. Schol. kwripyn| xodioe. idia d€ 7
Aێts Movkvdidov. Cp. Marcell. 52, 7a & tdia, otov arocivwors Kat
KwAvpyn Kal aroreixiots, Kal ora adAa map adXors pev od A€AEeKTaL, Tapa
tovtw € keirat. The word occurs also in Thucyd. iv. 27, 63.
R. EZ
178 DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSUS.
mpéoBevors. Thucyd. 1. 73, 7 ev peo Bevors nav ovk és avtWoyiav
aA c , € , su? > . , @ c , ” > ,
Tots vueTepors Evpyprayous eyevero, ada wept ov 7 TOL ErEepnWev* aicbavo-
pevoe O€ KataBonv ovk dALynv otoav nudv xKTA. Schol., ore tpeaBevors
[xai kataBonors| Kat KataPon od €yerar ei pn dia Tapa Oovevdidy. Cp.
Gregorius Corinthius de dial. Att. 14, p. 50 Schaef., ot “Artixot tH
, , , \ \ , ‘A ‘\ ‘
mperBetav mpecBevow éyovor kal tHv KataBonow KataBojv [Kat THv
ayarny ayarncw] Kai paddov 6 ov«vdidys.
kataBor (for kataZoAy of the Mss.). See Thucyd. i. 73 (as quoted
above), vill. 85, 87.
axOmSev. Thucyd. iv. 40, 8¢ ayOydova: schol., dua Avtyny. So
Hesychius, ax@ydova: Avrnv 6dvvnv Bapos. The word is found also in
Thucyd. 11. 37. As Mr Rouse suggests, 4y@ydwv might be paralleled
by the Old English ¢eex, xataBon by garboil, tpéoBevors by ambassage,
Kwdvpn by let, avaxwyxy by warstay, etc.
Sikaiwors. Cp. schol. Thucyd. i. 141, duxaiwois: KéAevois mpoo-
€ eee , ‘ > ‘ A a c ~ / /, 5
tagis: ill. 82, dukawoer d€ avti Tov TH Eavrwv dikaia KpioeL: V. 17,
dikawwoes: aitywata Sikata: Vill. 66, dikatwors avti Tod KoAaats 7) «is
diknv araywyy yroe kpiots. ‘The word occurs also in iv. 86.
138 5—-7 ‘The point specially criticised by Dionysius seems to
be the use of the periphrasis 7v dnAwoas for édyAwoev. Possibly also,
as Usener suggests, he thinks that the whole sentence might have
run more compactly thus: PeBawratra yap 6 DepiorokrAns Pioews
icxdv dydodoas padrXov érépov aios Av Gavpuaoa. The words és atro
are explained by the schol. in Thucyd. i. 138 as= eis tyv ioyiv ths
dicews.
13810 It seems best, for the reasons indicated below, to assume
a lacuna here, and to regard xai pay as introducing a second instance
of periphrasis. Usener would read 76 ovvropov in place of ro
onpawopevov, but “apart from the fact that xara zeviav is scarcely
more concise than zévys péev ov, the transition from periphrasis to
brachylogy is made through xai pyv alone; an example is introduced
before the statement of that which it illustrates; and the passage
violates the usage of the writer, since zove? tov Aoyov and similar
expressions are throughout the epistle used with a personal subject.
There seems to be no doubt that there is a lacuna after 76 onpawvo-
pevov; for (save here) up to the long citations in chapters xv. and
xvi., Dionysius uniformly points out the particulars in which he criti-
cises the passages quoted, and gives what is in his view a more
SECOND LETTER TO AMMAEUS: NOTES. 179
natural rendering.” (Winifred Warren, American Journal of Philology,
xX Pp. 319.)
13813 Thucyd. iv. 12, kal 6 peév Tovs Te adAovs ToLadra ETETTEPXE
Kal Tov €avTod KUBepviTnv avayKkacas oKeiha THY vadv exwpe eri THY
aroBabpav. Kal repwpevos aroBatvew dvexorn iro TOv APnvaiwy, Kal
Tpavpatirbeis oka eAtiTOYynoE TE Kal TEGOVTOS aiTod és THY TapEcel-
pectav 7) doris mepieppvy és tiv OdXaooav KtA, For wapetepeoia, cp.
schol. on Thucyd. Iv. b2, Tapeceiperia éoTy 6 €Ew TS eipecias THS vEews
Toros Kal 6 pépos ovKérL KuTaLS KexpyVTaL: eat dE TOTO TO aKpdTaToV
THS TpPYLVNS Kal THS Tpwpas, and on Vil. 34, wapeLepeoia eori TO KaTa
THV TpOpav mpd TOV KwTaV, ws av ElTOL TIS TO TapeE THS Elpecias.
Dionysius evidently regards the use of zapegeipeoia as an instance of
excessive brevity. He seems to imply that Thucydides used zapeée-
peoia to mean not 76 wapeE tHs eipecias (the part clear of the oars,
i.e. either end of the ship), but rather as a brachylogy for éxros zapa
THV €iperiav.
The same passage of Thucyd. is quoted by Demetrius, de Elocu-
tione 65, with a somewhat different purpose: 76 peyadetov pévrou év
Tols TXHpaTL TO pNde El THS adTAS pevey TIUTEWS, WS MovKvdidys, Kal
mpOtos aroBaivwv eri tHv atoBdbpav éectoWdyxyGE TE, Kal
TETOVTOS avTovd és THY TapeEetpectiav: TOAD yap ovTW peyadet-
OTEpov, 7) Elep ert THS adtns TrwWTEWS OUTWS Ey, OTL ErEmEV Eis TV
Tapeceperiav Kat avéBade tHV ac7ida.
138 17—23 Cp. schol. on the passage in question (Thucyd.
i. 41): 70 wapaweiv Kat agvodv pyyata ovta dvopatiKds TponveyKev.
188 24. The words 7 te otk arore(yiors Tod TLAnuprpiov are not
to be found in Thucydides. They seem to be a confused recollection
of the following passages: pera dé THs Iloredatas tiv aroteiyuow
(Thucyd. 1. 65), dia ris Acvxados thy od mepite(xiow (iil. 95), 9 TOD
WAnpprpiov Anis (vil. 24).
1401 d6Addvpors occurs in Thucyd. i. 143 and il. 51. That the
former is the passage here meant, is clear from the words év
Snpnyopta.
14017 The manuscripts of Thucydides give & rats o7ovdais.
With or without ev, xwAver seems to be used impersonally: “there is
no hindrance to the one, or to the other, in [o7, by] the treaty.” Cp.
Anistoph. Av. 463 (quoted by Forbes ad Thucyd. i. 144): év d:a-
patrew ov Kwdvet.
140 23 Cp. schol. ad Thucyd. 1. 2, éwiuyvivtes: eryuryvdpevor.
r2——2
180 DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSUS.
142 7 Cp. schol. ad Thucyd. i. 120, evyAddynoav avti tod ovve-
- ‘\ c ,
pugav Kal wmtAncar.
14214 Cp. Dionys. de Thucyd. c. 48 (with reference to the same
passage of Thucydides), cat ru 7d Katakopés THS pmeTaywyns <THs> Ek
Te Tod TANOvVTLKOD Eis TO EVLKOV Kal eK TOD TEPL TpoTWTwV NOyoU eis TO
-~ , f
TOV NeyovTos TpOTw7 ov.
1445 Cp. schol. ad Thucyd. il. 35, amirrotvoww: delrer Exacros.
éote b€ TYNMG.
144 9 ‘tdpaxos is not found in our present texts of Thucydides.
But it was probably read by Dionysius in one or more of the
following passages: Thucyd. ii. 84, iv. 75, vii. 80, vill. 42.
14410 dxdov. The passage in question is Thucyd. 1. 73, ei Kai
dv oxAov padAov eorat aiet TpoBalAopevors. Elsewhere in Thucydides,
who uses the word some twenty-six times in all, oyAos bears its usual
sense of ‘crowd.’ Cp. Phot. Lex. p. 366, 9, dxAos: ro 7AROos. Kai
tiv oxAnow. Hesychius, oyAov: évoxAnow.
144 11,12 7d Bovddcpevov...... 7o Suvdpevov. 70 BovdAdpevov is found
in Thucyd. i. go and vil. 49, but not in the passage (Thucyd. vi. 24)
actually quoted, where the manuscripts give 70 pev éxufupodv Tod rAoD
and the schol. adds the explanation ynyouv tiv éerivpiav. Possibly
Dionysius himself wrote éxi6vjotv and the copyists have brought this
into formal agreement with 17d BovAduevov above. 10 dvvdmevov is
absent from our texts of Thucydides, but it may have stood in ii. 97,
Gpws d€ kata 70 Ovvacbac (schol. dia tiv dvvapuv) ext wA€ov avTa expy-
gavto.—Cp. Antiph. Ovat. v. 73, Kpetocov dé xpi ylyver bat ae TO
buérepov duvapevov ewe dtkaiws oolew 7) 70 TdV €xOpdv PBovddmevov
adikws pe amoA\Avvat.
14417 The manuscripts of Thucyd. (iv. 78) give 76 éyxwpuor,
used adverbially (schol. éyyxwpiws). The ancient grammarians would
no doubt explain 76 émiywpiw as = “the national thing (constitution),”
comparing such passages as Thucyd. ii. 47, 7 vocos mpotov npéato
yevérbar tots “APnvaios, Aeyouevov pev Kat TpdTEpov ToAAaXOTE éyKaTa-
oxnwar (schol. 6nAvKds 7 vOTos, 70 b€ NeyOpeEVOV ws Tpds TO VOONpA
irynvrncev. Suid. ii. 1, p. 1007, vdcos eyopevov eyxatacknwat : mpos
TO onpatvopevov 1 ovvTacis: mpayya Sndovorr. apa Oovxvdidy), and
Odyss. xii. 74, vebeAn S€ pw apdiBeByke | Kvaven: TO pev ovmror
,
e<pweel>,
SECOND LETTER TO AMMAEUS: NOTES. 181
146 2—15 For a discussion of this passage, of the reading in
Thucyd. viii. 64, and of Dionysius’ general habits of quotation,
reference may be made to C7assical Review xiv. pp. 244—246,
‘Dionysius of Halicarnassus as an Authority for the Text of Thu-
cydides.’
146 19 It is curious that, in his own use of the verb éxzAyrreaGat,
Dionysius seems to contradict the rule he here lays down with regard
to xatazAyrrecba. In the de Zhucyd. c. 30 he quotes rovs évavtious
éxrerAnypevos from Thucydides. But in ad Fomp. 88 11 he writes
ei yap tis adXos éxrAntrerat Tais TXatwvixats éppynvecars, and in
de Isocr. c. 8 waprepeiv d€ Ta Sea Kai py exTAnTTETOaL Tats Cvpdopais.
Evidently he does not in these passages regard éxaAnrrecOar as
a synonym for davpalew or poBetcGa, but presses the original force
of the verb—‘to be struck with admiration by,’ ‘to be struck with
awe by.’
146 24 In Thucyd. il. 39 e6eAomer is supported by ABEFm,.g
as well as Dionysius ; e6éAowev by CG.
148 15 Cp. schol. ad Thucyd. iv. 10, vroxwpyoacr dé: vroxwpy-
cavtwv d€ Kkairep SvoeuBatov dv everiBatov yevnoetar tois Aaxedat-
pooviots.
148 20 Cp. Gregorius Cor. de dial. Att. 27 p. 71, os avrois py
arrodwbovat THY otvTagw mpos THY Pwvyv, GAAA Tpds TO oHpaLVopEVOY.
@ovxvdidys ev TO tpitw THS ovyypadys [ill 79]: TH 8 voTEepala eri pev
tyv moAw ovdev paddAov éréreov, Kaizep ev TOAAH Tapaxy Kai PoBw
évras, where the schol. explains éwi pev tiv woAw by xara Tis TOAEws
nyouv Tav TohiTar.
150 15 Cp. Marcell. 53, réOeuxe d€ roAXdKis Kal TAO Kal Tpdypara
avT ayvdpav, ws TO avtimaXov dé€os (ili. 1).
1525 Cp. Marcell. 56, doadrs thy diavorav dia TO vrepBarois
xXatpew : 50, To d€ THS cvvOdcews...vTEpBaTikov, eviore OE Kal dcades.
152 17 ov xaXerds dvioravto. ‘Vhe opening passage of Thucy-
dides (i. 1, 2); up to and including these words, is quoted and discussed
by Dionysius, de Comp. Verb. c. 22.
1542 In the English translation of this and the remaining
illustrative extracts from Thucydides, it has not seemed necessary
(as the Greek original is printed on the opposite page) to make
an elaborate attempt to reproduce those peculiarities of construction
which are criticised by Dionysius.—‘ The change of subject and
182 DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSUS.
the departure from chronological order appear clumsy. But Thu-
cydides is not telling the old legend over again for its own sake;
he is marking emphatically the circumstances which favoured Atreus.
‘Eurystheus was dead—Atreus was his uncle—Eurystheus had left
Mycenae in charge of Atreus. Now Atreus had come to Mycenae
because he had been compelled to fly from Pisa,’ ete.” Forbes,
Thucyd. i. 9 (note on).
156 21 Cp. Dionys. de Thucyd. c. 29, Tapopowaes yap apporepa
TAVTA Kal TAapLTWoreEls TeEpLExEl, KaL TA ETiHeTA KaLAWrLTMOD Xap KeElTaL,
and schol. ad Thucyd. il. 82, 76 d€ diX€ratpos mapeAKovTws KeEtTaL.
Kéxpytat d€ adt@ dia TO Tpocbeivar TOAMav aAdyioToV, iva Tapicwors
yevyntat.—From the modern point of view, the style of Thucydides
has been analysed and estimated by M. Alfred Croiset, Thucydide :
Livres i—ii. pp. 102 ff. and Aistoire de la littérature grecque iv.
pp. 155 ff.; as well as by Professor Blass Att. Ber. 1. 201—227.
meOsonkY OF RHETORICAL AND
GRAMMATICAL TERMS:
In this Glossary of the chief rhetorical and grammatical terms
found in the Zhree Literary Letters, we are not directly concerned
with the general question of the language and style of Dionysius.
But it may be useful to give a reference to the chapter headed “ Die
sprachlichen und stilistischen Grundsatze des Dionysius von Hali-
karnass,” in W. Schmid’s Der Atticismus in seinen Hauptvertretern
von Dionysius von Halikarnass bis auf den sweiten Philostratus, 1.
pp. 1—26. In accordance with his own precepts, Dionysius aims at
simplicity and directness of style, though occasionally he loses himself
in the labyrinths of a period. In his use of words he is, often and
necessarily, extremely technical. He is, nevertheless, anything but
a pedantic writer. He discerns that the waters of language remain
fresh only if fed perpetually from the springs. Holding that the
language of literature should, where necessary, draw fearlessly on the
language of ordinary life (cp. pp. 10, 15, 47 supra), he is himself
often most vivid, graphic, and (we are tempted to say) modern.
Examples of this freshness will have been noticed in the Zhree
Letters, and in various passages quoted in the course of the Intro-
ductory Essay. A couple of instances may be added here. He
speaks (de Thucyd. c. 30) of ‘ hardening’ one’s style (oxAnpaywyov,—
as though a delicate child were in question) ; and again in reference
to style, he refers to the gift of knowing when to ‘take occasion by
the hand’ (ove tov Katpov airs érioctata AaPeiv deEwds, de adm. vt
dic. in Dem. c. to).
The copiousness of the technical vocabulary of Dionysius may be
judged from the fact that this Glossary, somewhat lengthy as it is, is
confined strictly to words occurring in the Zhree Literary Letters.
184 DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSUS.
dyoyy. ad Amm. ii.156 £2. Cast of style. Cp. de Lsocr. c. 15, de
Lsaeo cc. 18, 20, de adm. vi dic. in Dem. cc. 2, 23, 36, 42, 44, de Comp.
c. 23. Also used by Dionysius of “raining (de Lsocr. c. 1, de Thucyd.
c. 50, de Comp. c. 1), and of a mode in music (de Comp. c. 19).
ayov. ad Amm. i. 54 8, 54 23 (dywvtat Aoywv pytopixdv), 56 12,
66 2, 80 8, 80 25, 8214, 8420. ad Pomp. 120 22. Contests, or
speeches delivered in political and judicial contests. tots adnOivors
dyévas = ‘real contests or debates’: cp. Cic. Brut. 316 ‘‘(Molonem)
actorem in veris Caussis scriptoremque praestantem.” With dyo-
victat (‘ fighters, combatants, athletes’) cp. de [saeco c. 20, dywvioris
dé Aoywv ovre TvpPovdevtikav ovTe duxaviKav ett. ‘The adj. evaywvios
eccurs in de Jsaeo c. 20, de adm. vi dic. in Dem. cc. 30, 45. For the
distinction between the ypagixy A€Eis and the aywviortiKy A€~vs cp.
Aristot. Aer. ili. 12, 1, 0d yap 7 adt7 ypaduky (sc. A€Ets) Kai dywvioriK,
ovde Snunyopixy Kat Stxavixy, i.e. the literary is not identical with the
controversial style, nor the political with the forensic.
ainaticy (rrwots). ad Amm. ii. 146 8, 14614. Accusative case.
dkatdddAndos. ad Amm. ii. 148 11. Lacking in correspondence or
symmetry ; irregular. Cp. de adm. vt adic. in Dem. c. 27, 8a paxpod
. \ > , ‘ ” Q , »” ” ,
Te yap Kai dxatdAdnXov Kat ovte devoTyTa Exov ovTEe oiVTAew.
dkorovdia. ad Amm. i. 1384 10, 184 23. Sequence.
akpiBrys. ad Pomp. 96 24,1009, 10019. Of style: exact, precise.
Cp. the use of the corresponding verb in ad Pomp. 114 26, axpiBot
pardAov, ‘gives a finer finish to’: also de Comp. c. 23, axpiBodv ryv
appoviav. In ad Pomp. 1144, ravrny axpiBotow apdorepo, the refer-
ence is to the duaAextos Kabapa Kai axpyBns, which Aristotle demands
from writers of Greek.
addAnyopla. ad Pomp. 9818. Allegory, covert meaning. For criti-
cisms of the allegories of Plato, cp. 7. tw. c. 32, ert yap Tovrous Kal Tov
TAdrwva odx ixvota. diacvpover, tohdaKis WoTEp VO Baxyelas Twos TOV
Adyov eis akparouvs Kai aryveis petaopas Kai cis GAAnyopiKoV oTOUdov
expepopevov. See also Glossary zézd. p. 194. Demetr. de Eloc. 99,
r , i Cy ete) , \ , > A > ~ @
peyaretov O€ Tl éote Kal 7 GAXAnyopia, Kal padiota ev Tuts dzretAats, olov
ieee , cd ec , > a + /
WS O Atovuc tos, GTL OL TETTLYES QAUTOLS ZOovTalL xapober.
dvahoyla. ad Pomp. 9817. Analogy, proportion. Cp. Aristot.
het. ii. 10, 7 (as quoted by Dionysius in ad Amm. i. 66 20), The
reference is to the analogy, proportion, or point of contact, in the
terms of petadopai. Cp. note on pp. 165, 166 supra.
avaravots. ad Pomp. 1108. Pause.
dvtGects, ad Am. il. 136 2, 156 9 (avriberov : concrete). Anti-
thesis: ‘the opposition of words or of ideas, or of both, in the two
corresponding clauses of a sentence’ (Jebb, A¢¢. Ov. 1. 98 n. 1). See
also under zapiowous, p. 199 infra.
avtikatnyopetv, ad Ami. iby SY oe FAD predicate one thing of
another, use one in place of the other.
avtuseratagis. ad Amm. i. 1447. Grammatical term: Znéer-
change (of genders). Lat. commutatio.
dvtovopactikds. ad Amm. i. 14813. Pronominal. avrovopariKkov
(the reading of P) seems to point to this form rather than to avtw-
/ > /
VUPLLKOV OY GAVTWVUILATLKOV.
amayyAdev. ad Amm. i. 58 13, 58 21, 7014, 70 21, 743. Zo
deliver a speech: cp. dvariGewar infra.
dmepoxadla. ad Pomp. 100 16, 98 12 (areipoxados). Lastelessness,
vulgarity: especially as shown in the misuse of ornament. Cp.
Norden, Antike Kunstprosa i. 363 n. 2, ll. 559.
arnpxatwpévos. ad Amm. il. 138217, 18618. Archaic, antiquated,
obsolete. So also in de Ssocr. c. 2, de Thucyd. c. 50.
dml@avos. ad Amm.1.6614. Unconvincing, improbable.
dtolytos. ad Pomp. 96 21, 100 9. . Natural, not artificial. Cp.
de Lysia c. 8, doKei pev yap arointos Tis 6 THS AppLovias avTod XapaKTyp.
anoctpépew. ad Amm. 11.134 12,148 20, 1501, 15023. Zo cause
to pass, e.g. from one construction to another. So azoatpody, ‘ transi-
tion, 18417, 14817. Cp. 7. vw. p. 195.
amorevew. ad Pomp. 9810. To lengthen out: of redundant style.
Possibly both the verbs, in the phrase é\Kel TE pLakpov aTOTELVOVTa TOV
voov, derive their meaning from one or other of the technical uses of
é\xew and azmoreivew described in H. Bliimner’s TZechnologie und
Terminologie der Gewerbe und Kiinste bei den Griechen und Romern.
dp®pov. ad Amm.ii.1461. Article. Cp. [Aristot.] Poetics c. 20,
THs de AcLews aracns Tad eoTi TA pépy, GToLXELov GvAAA/ TiVSeTpLoS
apOpov dvopa pia mTao.s Néyos, and Dionys. Hal. de Comp. c. 2, ot
de per avtovs yevouevor, kai paiora of THS Stwikys aipesews nyewoves,
€ws Tettapwv tportPiBacav, xwpicavtes awd TaV cvvdéopwv TA apOpa.
Two things follow from these passages: (1) the Stoics were the
186 DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSUS.
probable authors of the separation of ‘article’ from ‘conjunction’ ;
(2) the term ‘article’ must originally, and possibly in the time of
Dionysius, have been used in a comprehensive way, dpOpov éro-
taxtixov being = pronomen relativum. Cp. Dionysius Thrax, Ars
Grammatica p. 61 (ed. Uhlig): apOpov éozi pépos Adyou wrwriKdr,
TpoTagoomevoy Kai brotavcOmevov THs KAlcEws TOV dvopaTwr, i.e. an
‘article’ is an inflected part of speech, preceding or following
[according as it is 6 or és] the case of the noun it is connected with.
dppovia. ad Pomp. 124 27. ad Amm. ii. 18612. Harmony,
composition, adjustment of words. The péon dppovia in ad Pomp.
124 27 is the same as the cow dppovia described on p. 18 supra. It
is hardly possible to find a satisfactory equivalent in English for
appovia Aoyov, the sense being concinna orationis compositio.
dppevixds, ad Amm. il. 14612. Of the masculine gender.
apxatomperns, ad Pomp. 9815. Old-fashioned: used of archaic
words.
dpxadrns. ad Pomp. 981. Antiquity. Cp. Plat. Lege. 657 B.
dexnparicros. ad Pomp. 1266. Lacking in figures (oynpara).
Cp. [Plut.] Vet. Andoc. 15, éoru dé drdods Kal dxatdoKevos év TOIS
Aoyous, apeAns te Kal doynpdtiotos.
"Aris, ad Amm. i. 686, 763. ad Pomp. 1145. In ad Amm.i.
the word is used of the researches of Philochorus into Attic history
etc.; in ad Pomp. it means the Attic dialect (sc. yAdrra).
avdékartos. ad Pomp.11222. Severe, uncompromising. Cp. the
use of atGddys, with reference to Thucydides’ style, in de Comp. c. 22,
apxaixov b€ Tu Kal avades émide(kvutar Kaos. ‘The term aibéxacros
is used by Plutarch (Vz. Caz. c. 6) to describe the honest bluntness
of Cato. It is used, we Comp. c. 22, of the atornpa dppovia, which
is characterised as: yxta avOnpa, peyadtddppwv, aibéxacros, akop-
Wevtos.
avernpos. ad Amm. ii. 18613. Stern, austere. The following
antithetic expressions in the de adm. vi dic. in Dem. fix the meaning :
avornpav tAapav (Cc. 8); Tore pev TO apxavompeTés Kai adarypov, Tore de
TO peAixpov Kat dioxatvov éudawwopevov (Cc. 48).
avxpos. ad Pomp. 10613. Here used, as by Thucydides, in the
literal sense of drought. Elsewhere (de adm. vi dic. in Dem. c. 44)
applied to a spare, meagre, jejune style: cp. the adj. aiyunpos in
de Thucyd. c. 51, avxpnpov Kat axoopyrtov Kat idvotiKyy (rpayyareiar).
GLOSSARY. 187
ddedys. ad Pomp. 9621. Plain, simple. Cp. de adm. vi dic. in
Dem. c. 2, 4 d& érépa A€Ets y AuTH Kal adeAys (illustrated by the style
of Lysias).
Bovrkcofar. ad Pomp. 9617. To aspire. Ernesti, Lex. Techn.
Graec. Rhet. p. 58: ‘Hoc verbo utitur Dionysius Halic. ut studium
atque artem significet, qua quis orationem instruat, contrariam sim-
plicitati naturali, quam quis naturae beneficio adhibet, ut in Iud.
Isocr. cap. 3 mépuxe 7 Avoiov AéEws Exe TO xapiev, 7 b& “looxparous
BovdAerar, h. e. Lysiana dictio xaturalem suavitatem habet, Isocratis
autem affectatam, studio quaesitam.” Cp. ad Pomp. 96 109.
yevxés. ad Amm. i. 146 8, 146 14. Genitive: yevixy rroors.
yévos. ad Amm. 1. 146 6. Gender.
yAormmpatikds. ad Amm. il. 182 17,136 18. Obscure, recondite. Cp.
Aristot. Poetics c. 21, amav dé ovopa eotw 7) Kipiov 7) yAorTa...... Neyo
dé KUpiov pev @ xpaovtar ExacTol, yAwrray (‘strange word’) dé @ Erepor.
Galen (Gloss. Hipp. xix. 63) 00a toivuv tév dvopatuv ev pev Tots mdAaL
Xpovors qv ovvyGy, viv b€ ovxére eori, TA ev ToLadTa yAWTTas KaAovoL.
de adm. vi dic. in Dem. Cc. 4, ovte yap apxaious ovte reromnpévors
ovte yAwtrypatiKois dvopacw GAG Tols KoWoTaTOLS Kal cuVvyberTtdToLS
KEXpPNTAL.
ypapucds. ad Amm. i. 58 2, Xapieotatos amdvtwv tév Aoywv Kal
ypapixwratos : the most literary or polished, that which reads the best.
“While the first epithet, yxapréoraros, implies all the grace and charm
of perfect Attic diction; the second, ypagixwraros, points to the
finish and precision characteristic of the written style, as contrasted
with the style of debate which lends itself more readily to delivery.
Such at least is the definition given in Aristotle’s Rhetoric, il. 12
§ 2, €ore de A€Eis ypadiky pev y axpiBeotary, dywvirtiKy S€ y VroKpLTt-
xwtatn. In §6 of the same chapter, Aristotle describes the epideictic
Style as ypadixwtarn, that is, ‘in the highest degree adapted for
writing, for its special function is reading’: and next to this he
places the forensic style (7 pev ody éridecxtixn A€éts ypadixkwratn: TO
yap €pyov airis avayvwows: Sevtépa dé 7 dixavixy).” Sandys, Speech of
Demosthenes against Leptines, p. XXxiv.
Seworns. ad Amm. i. 56 14, ad Pomp. 126 4. The quality of
deworns, attributed to Demosthenes above all orators, is that mastery
which is the joint result of force and cleverness. No one translation
will serve in all cases, but such equivalents as mastery, oratorical
power, impressiveness, nervous force, intensity, skill, resourcefulness may
188 DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSUS.
be suggested. Cp. Demetr. de Eloc. 247, ra 88 avribera Kat TrapojLova
ev Tais TEpodois PevKTeov: GyKov yap rowdow, od dewornTa, toAAaxod
S€ Kai Wvypdrnta avrt Sewvorntos, Dionys. H. de Thucyd. c. 53, Thv
efeyeipovtav Ta rdOn Seworyra, ibid. c. 23, ovde 57 Tovov ovde Bapos
ovd€ mabos dueyeipov Tov vodv ovde TO éppwpevov Kal evaywviov mvedua, e&
ov 7 Kaovpevn yiverac dSewdtys. This last passage (together with
such phrases as 10 dewdv kat doBepov in ad Amm. ii. 186 14) is
enough to show that the word is not confined to mere ‘cleverness’ or
‘ingenuity, though that is the predominant meaning in Dem. de Cor.
276, where devos may be translated ‘rhetorician’ and tv env
dewornta ‘my rhetorical skill.’
Snpnyopta. ad Amm. 1. 56 13 (aydvas...... Snunyoptxovs), 58 4,
58 13 (Aoyov...... dypnyoprxov), 5815, 58 21, 58 24, 60 5 (SyunyoptKes),
66 4 (dnunyopeiv), 70 7, 70 13 (Adyous...... Synpnyoptkovs), 72 4, 72 8,
72 14, 72 22, 78 21 (ednuyyopowv: from Dem. de Cor.), 80516
(Snunyoptxors...... Aoyous); ad Pomp. 114 27; ad Amm. ii. 140 1,
1504. A speech before the assembly, a parliamentary speech. Specially
used of the Speeches (fyropetar) of Thucydides: de Thucyd. c. 34,
ad Pomp. 114 27, ad Amm. ii. 140 2. A list of the Snunyopiat
(cup PovAevtikoi Néyor) of Demosthenes will be found in S. H. Butcher’s
Demosthenes, p. 170.
Sypooros. ad Amm. i. 56 21, 605, 70 8, 821. Of speeches:
public. oyou Snudo.r is used by Dionysius to cover both doyou
dnpnyopuco’ and Nd-you SuKavexol : cp. 60 5. In Adyous dnuoclous eis
dixaoTypia yeypadws (70 8) the reference is to ‘orationes forenses in
caussis ad maiestatem plebis pertinentibus,’ i.e. rév Sucavkav Adywr
tovs dypociovs )( Tors iduwriKovs: see list in S. H. Butcher’s Demo-
sthenes, p. 171.
Siddextos. ad Pomp. 96 17,100 10, 1143. Language, idiom.
Stariberbar. ad Amm. i. 58 1, 725, 72 8, ad Pomp. 1022. To
deliver a speech. Equivalent to amayyéAXew p. 185 supra. dreAnAvoe
is used in the same sense ad Amm. i. 72 13, 72 22.
Stavyjs. ad Pomp. 96 23. Transparent.
Si8acKkadikds. ad Amm. 11.182 4. Didactic.
Sunynors. ad Fomp. 110 7, 112 7 (dupynpa), 112 13, 114 27.
Narrative. Strictly dujynpa is a thing narrated, tale, incident.
SibvpapBos. ad Pomp. 10017, 102 11. Dithyramb, inflated lan-
guage. So 102 6, ryv tpomixyy re kat dibvpapBucnv dpaoww. Cf. Plat.
Phaedr. 238 D, 241 E.
GLOSSARY. 189
Stxavixds. ad Amm. i. 56 12. Forensic. Longer phrases are
also used to denote forensic speeches, e.g. ad Amm. i. 56 23, 66 5,
70 8, 80 9.
Sorixds. ad Amm. ii. 14617. Dative: with rroos.
Spacrnpios. ad Amm. ii. 13846. Active: with pjya. Cp. evepyn-
TLKOS, TOLNTLKOS.
Sivapis. ad Amm. il. 18415. Meaning. Also used of power,
ability: ad Pomp. 92 20, 100 4.
Suocdkactos. ad Amm.ii.1386 19. Hard to guess, puzzling.
Svoef—Auxtos. ad Amm. il. 184 24. Hard to unravel, involved.
SvetapakodovOnros. ad Pomp. 110 30, 118 22, ad Amm. i. 152 7,
152 24. Hard to follow, obscure. The opposite of etzapaxodovGnros,
ad Pomp. 122 5, ad Amm. ii. 132 6.
éykatackevos. ad Pomp. 98 26. Of style: embellished, highly
wrought, elaborate, artificial. Cp. de Comp. c. 18 (where the reference
is likewise to Plato), vdv dé 31) epi pev tiv exAoyyv eorw a dvapaprave,
Kal padwrra ev ois av tH VWyAnY Kal TepiTTHY Kal éyKaTacKevoY diwKH
dpacw: de adm. vi dic. in Dem. c. 1, e&nddaypévn Kat Tepitt)) Kat
é€yKaTaoKevos Kal Tois émiOeroLs KOT poLS aTacL TUmTETANpHmEVN EELS, 7S
Gpos Kal kavov 6 @ovkvdidns: Demetr. de Elocut. 15, ovtw yan xai
> , ™” « ho Ng € N a 7 No iets om a OU spc
éyKatagKevos erat (SC. 6 Aoyos) Kal GrAods aua, Kal €€ audoty yOvs, Kat
»” , > \ »” , U el ,
ovte para idwrikds ovte pata coduotikos. See also S.v. katackevy.
exota. ad Amm.i. 5410. Probabilities. V. onpetov, p. 205
infra.
eoaywyy, ad Amm. i. 56 7, ad Amm. i. 1822. Lnitiations,
introductions: with especial reference to the study of rhetoric. at
<igaywyai Tav Noywv = ‘ institutiones oratoriae,’ while ai ré€xvae = ‘artes
rhetoricae.’
e&Soats. ad Amm.i. 7014. Publication.
éxhoyy. ad Amm. iu. 18216. Chorce, selection.
&porrev. ad Pomp. 1201. To express, copy: used in middle.
Cp. de adm. vi dic. in Dem. c. 4, tTHv ériberov Kat RaterKevacpevnv
dpacw tov wept Topyiay expenaxrar, ibid. c. 13, Tov Avovakov XapakTypa
expenaxtat eis dvuya (ad unguem, ad amussim). Cp. Greilich, Dionys.
Falic. quibus potissimum vocabulis ex artibus metaphorice ductis tn
scriptis rhetoricts usus sit, pp. 15—19.
190 DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSUS.
Anvitev. ad Pomp. 98 8. To speak or write Greek. Especially
used of pure Greek writing: Aristot. /Aev. ill. 5, 1, €o7e 0 apxy THs
AEeEews TO EAAnviCeEv.
euBpeys. ad Amm. ii. 186 14. Of style: weight, gravity (10
eu ples).
tperpos. ad Amm. ii. 182 14. Metrical.
évaddayy. ad Amm. ii. 18418. Lnxnallage, variation. Reference
is also made to the use of this figure in ad Amm. ii. 140 15, 142 13.
évdpyeaa. ad Pomp. 92 6, 114 10. Vividness: vivid, pictorial,
graphic representation. The following passages will illustrate the
meaning: Dionys. Hal. de Lysza c. 7, éxeu b€ Kai THV evapyevav 7oAAnv
« , a a 2 > \ , c ‘ ‘ > / ” ‘
7 Avolov devs: avtn 8 eoti dSvvapis tis td Tas aicOynoers ayovoa TA
Neyoueva, yivetar 8 ex THS TOV TapaxoAroVvbovvTwv AnWews, 7. VW. C. 15,
ws 0 €repov Tey pytopixy pavtacia BovdAerau Kai erepov 7 Tapa roLytais,
> B , 2~ “ \ > / / 2 \ ” a
ovk av abou ce, odd Gti THS pev ev Tornoe TAOS eoTiv exaAnéts, THS
& ev Adyous evapyera, auddtepar 8 opws 76 te <raOytixov> em€ynrodor
Kat 70 ovyKexuypevov, Spengel’s Rhett. Gr. i. 439, (Anonymi Ars),
e€ote O€ evapyeia Adyos tx ow aywv TO dynrovpevov. See also Demetr.
de Elocut. 209—222, and Jebb’s Aft. Or. 1. 172, 173. The Latin
equivalent is evzdentia.
évepyntixos. ad Amm. iu. 140 18. Active: of verbs.
evOipnpa. ad Amm.i. 62 25, 64 6, 648, 64 21, 745, ad Pomp.
114 28, 120 1 (€v6vpypatixos), 120 2, ad Amm. ii. 184 21, 152 5,
154 12. Rhetorical syllogism: Aristotle’s definition, as quoted in
ad Amm. i. 648. ‘By enthymeme, Aristotle ‘meant a rhetorical
syllogism : that is, a syllogism drawn, not from the premisses (épxa¢)
proper to any particular science—such, for instance, as medicine—
but from propositions relating to contingent things in the sphere of
human action, which are the common property of all discussion ;
propositions which he classifies as general (eixéra) and particular
(onpeia) ; and accordingly defines an enthymeme as ‘a syllogism
from probabilities and signs.’ [Arist. dv. Pr. ii. 27, evAdoyopos é€
eixdtwv kat onpeiwv.| A misapprehension of Aristotle's meaning had,
as early as the first century B.c., led to the conception of the enthy-
meme as not merely a syllogism of a particular subject-matter, but
also as a syllogism of which one premiss ts suppressed. (Quint. vy. 10
§ 3: this is what Juvenal means, Sav. vi. 449, by curtum enthymema. |
The term @izchetreme was then brought in to denote a rhetorical
syllogism which is stated in full—an ‘essay’ to deal thoroughly with
GLOSSARY. 191
the issue at stake,” Jebb A¢Z. Or. il. 289, 290. Thus the Aristotelian
evOvpnpua is an arguiient based on probable evidence. But in the later
rhetorical writers (to judge from the illustrations given by Dionysius,
and by Demetrius de £/ocutione) év6vpnpata sometimes meant little
more than considerations, points. Cp. Volkmann, Die Rhetoritk der
Griechen und Romer, p. 192: “ Dieser doppelten Namensdeutung
gemass verstand man nun unter Enthymem theils das Beweismittel
selbst, d. h. den Gedanken, der angewandt wird, um etwas anderes
zu beweisen, daher év@vunya oft gerade synonym mit évvonua, vel.
Schol. Aristid. p. 173. Soph. Oed. Col. 292, auch bei Isokrates ist
évOvpnpua wohl nichts anderes, als der zum Beweis benutzte Gedanke
—theils die Darstellung des Beweises, und letzteres war das gewohn-
liche.” zbid. p. 455: “Eine sententia ex contrarits wurde, gleichsam
Kat éoyyv, evOdpnua genannt, wie der Satz aus Cic. pro Lig. 4, 10:
“quorum igitur impunitas, Caesar, tuae clementiae laus est, eorum te
ipsorum ad crudelitatem acuet oratio ?’”
évucds. ad Amm. i. 184 7. Singular: of number.
énddaypeévos. ad Pomp. 98 26, ad Amm. ii. 1384 19. Uncommon,
artificial, elaborate. ‘The full phrase would be é&nAAaypevos tov ev Get
(de adm. vi dic. in Dem. c. 56), or the like. Cp. 7 é&addXay7 ris
avvyGovs xpnoews ad Amm. ii. 186 25, tatra e&fAAaKTar pev eK TIS
ToditiKys Kal gvvydovs Tots ToAXOis amayyeAlas de Thucyd. c. 54, 9 THs
avvOérews eSaddayy de Dinarcho c. 7, e&n\daypevnv )( vv 6 (Sutrexrov)
de adm. vi dic. in Dem. c. 8. The use in Aristot. Poetics c. 21 is more
special: e&AAaypevov 0 eotiv dtav Tod dvopalopévov 70 pev Katadelry
TO d€ roy, otov Td “ deEvrepov Kata palov” avi Tod defor.
éraywyn. ad Amm.i. 62 26. An induction. Cp. Aristot. Rhet.
16 aur
%rawos. ad Pomp. 88 18. A panegyric, eulogy. Cp. éyKwp.ov
(ad Pomp. 90 10), laudatio, éloge.
érlOeros. ad Pomp. 96 27, 98 16 (ériBerov), 114 11. LExtranecous,
accessory. AS a noun: adjective, epithet. See also note on p. 172
supra. Cp. de adm. vi dic. in Dem. c. 25, tTHS 8 areipoxadias adtov
(Aarwva) otderuror eLnwoa THs ev tals emibérois KatacKevats, bid.
C. 1, 7 pev ovv e&nAAaypevyn Kai TEpiTTi) Kal €yKaTacKEVvos Kai Tos ex €roLs
KOopols aTact TupTEeTANPwmEVn EELS.
“Was das éiferov, das Adjectivum betrifft: so ist es im Alterthum
vielleicht von Niemanden, héchstens aber nur von dem einen oder
anderen Grammatiker zum besonderen Redetheil gemacht,” Steinthal,
192 DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSUS.
Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaft bei den Griechen und Rimern, p. 608.
But cp. de Comp. Verb. c. 5.
émirdios. ad Amm. il. 142 23. Funeral oration: sc. Nyos.
émirpexav. ad Pomp. 98 2. To be spread over, to lie upon. Cp.
de adm. vi dic. in Dem. c. 41, Kai yap wai dgiwpa «al yxapis adtav
emITpEXEL Tals appoviats, de Thucyd. c. 5, ETLTPEXEL [LEVTOL TLS WPA TOLS
» > A“ ‘\ , ° 9 A ‘ A“
epyos avtdv Kai xapis. [In de Dinarcho c. 7, dre raou peyv Tors
apxeTirors abropuys tis eémimpérer yapis Kal wpa, possibly erurpéxer
should be read.]
emitpoxddyv. ad Amm. 11. 182 8. Cursorily, rapidly.
émxelpnorts. ad Amm. i. 62 5, 66 15, 66 16 (érixelpnua). Argu-
mentation. In 66 15 (Wuxpav pev Kat aribavov eérixeipnow cicdyor,
Bua€opevos b€ TO Kaxoupy6ratov Tov éxtyepynpdtov Tov mOavesTepor,
ote xTX.) éxixeipyow may be translated by argumentation, and ém-
xeipnua by argument. See also s.v. evOvunua supra. Cp. de Dinarcho
C. 6, miaTovTal <re> od Kar’ evOipnua povov, GAA Kal Kar’ érixeipypa
tAaruvov, de [saeco c. 16, év 8€ Tots drodextikois Suaddatrew av dd€erev
‘Toatos Avoiov tO Te py Kar evOdpnud tH Néeyew GAA Kat’ eTLXELpNnua
kat TO py Bpaxews GAAA SteEodiKGs pnde dwAGs GAN axpiBas avéew
Te pahdov Kat deworepa Toreiv TA Tpaypata Kal TA 7aby Tovey yevvt-
KUTEpA.
“Wann und durch wen der Ausdruck éyecpyua zuerst in die
Rhetorik aufgenommen ist, lasst sich, wie es scheint, nicht mehr
ermitteln. Cornif. 11. 2, 2 kennt ihn bereits in dem eben angefiihrten
allgemeineren Sinne von ziotus, denn er tibersetzt éryyepywera durch
argumentationes (argumentationes, guas Graeci emyepypara appellant),”
Volkmann, Die Rhetortk der Griechen und Rémer, p. 195.
éppnvela. ad Pomp. 88 12, 120 21. Lxfression. Cp. the use
of wept épynvetas (=de elocutione) in the title of the treatise once
attributed to Demetrius Phalereus.
evratSevtos. ad Pomp. 88 4. Cultured, scholarly.
evpvOpia. ad Pomp. 126 9. Rhythmical movement: of a period.
eoronla. ad Pomp. 12020. Euphony. A special quality of
Lysias : cp. de Lysia c. 12, ore tiv xapw od zpooBadXover tiv Avovakiny
ovde THY ebotopiay exovow éxelvyns TIS NéLews, de adm. vi dic. in Dem.
/ > / a / / > Z, SS 4
C. 13, Proiky Tis eiTpExer ToIs Avotov Adyors edotopia Kal xapis.
GLOSSAR Y. 193
evtedys. ad Pomp. 12015. Commonplace, vulgar. Cp. Philostr.
Vit. Soph. 253 Kxatnyopovo. d€ tov “Apioteidov ws ebredes eitovtos
Tpootp.ov.
jdovyn. ad Pomp.11420. Charm. Lat. tucunditas. Fr. agrément.
ndovn is a Somewhat comprehensive term: cp. de Comp. c. 11 tatTw
d€ td pev THY yoovyy, THY wpay (‘freshness’), Kai tHYV yap (‘grace’),
kal THY evotopuiav (‘euphony’), Kai tTyHv yAuKityta (‘sweetness’), Kal TO
muJavov (‘ persuasiveness ’), Kal mavra Ta ToLavTa.
n00s. ad Amm.i. 5215. ad Pomp. 11413. In the plural: ¢raits
of character.
Beatpikds. ad Pomp. 985. Theatrical, showy, pretentious.
OnArvKes. ad Amm. ii. 146 6. Of the feminine gender.
Ids. ad Pomp. 1145. Tonic dialect (sc. yhorta).
lopa. ad Amm. ii. 1380 6,130 17. Peculiarity of language.
~ tkapés. ad Pomp. 116 4. Bright, joyous: opp. poBepos. Cp.
avaTnpos, p. 186 supra.
ioxves. ad Pomp. 96 19, 96 21, 100 8, 100 19, 100 25. Of style:
plain. Cp. Quintil. /zst. Or. xii. 10, 58: “namque unum subtile
(genus), quod icxvev vocant, alterum grande atque robustum, quod
adpov dicunt, constituunt ; tertium alii medium ex duobus alii flori-
dum (namque id ay@ypov appellant) addiderunt.” In the passages of
the ad Pomp. icxyvos is used in connexion with adedns, axpuBys,
a7oinros, as elsewhere with Aurds. It is sometimes contrasted with
vidos. Cp. also de adm. vi dic. in Dem. cc. 2, 34, and the use
of zenuis in Cic. Orat. vy. 20 and Quintil. /zst. Oras. xil. 10, 21. The
plain style was regarded as bearing preeminently the stamp of Lysias :
cp. Avovakds (yapaxryp), de adm. vi dic. in Dem. c. 11.
toxvs. ad Pomp.114 18. Of style: strength.
ka8apos. ad Pomp. 118 2. Clear, lucid.
kawwétys. ad Amm. ii. 18624. Lovelty.
Kaxotpyos. ad Amm.1.66 15. Dushonest, mischievous.
kadAueretv. ad Pomp. 986. To use elegant language. Cp. 6 xad-
Averys “Ayabwv, Aristoph. Vesp. 49. In earlier Greek the verb was
used in the middle voice: Thucyd. vi. 83 kai od kadXerovpeba ws 7
tov BapBapov povor Kabeovtes eikoTws apxopev, Aristot. Ret. iil. 2, 3
ei SovAos KaAAteToiTo 7) Alav véos, amrperéoTeEpov.
Kaddtdoyla. ad Pomp. 1201. Elegant l/anguage-—Though the
compounds have a somewhat depreciatory sense, 76 kadov (‘ beauty,’
R. 13
194 DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSUS.
or perhaps better ‘nobility’) is a term of high praise. In de Comp.
c. Ir (cp. p. 13 supra) a good style is regarded as resulting from
the combination of 7d xadov and 7 ydovy. The former includes:
grandeur (eyadorpéreia), gravity (Bapos), majesty (ceuvodoyia),
dignity (a&iwpa).
kavov. ad Pomp.1145. Standard. Lat. norma et regula.
kataSpopy. ad Pomp. 90 8. Lnvective.
kataddndos. ad Amm. ii. 146 22. Of grammatical construction :
congruous, regular. Cp. axataddAnAos supra, and also de adm. vi dic.
in Dem. c. 27, de Thucyd. cc. 31, 37-_ In Modern Greek, xaraAAndos
means ‘suitable.’
katackevatw. ad Amm. i. 56 24, 66 13, 80 25, 84 23, ad Pomp.
100 9, ad Amm. 1, 180 11. Zo construct, compose. Kkatecxevacpevnv
(ad Pomp. 100 9)=Lat. ornatam: cp. de Lysia c. 8 €or b€ TravTos
padXdov Epyov TexviKds KaTeckevacpevos, and de Comp. c. 26 év @ Todd
TO KaTeckevagpevov eoti Kai evtexvov. With ad Amm. i. 84 23, cp.
de Comp. c. 23 évos ere rapabyow AéEw avdpos eis TOV adtov KaTe-
TKEVATHEVNVY XApPAkTHpa.
KATACKEUT). ad Pomp. 96 27) 100 6, 100 IO, 100 21, 102 9; 102 17,
11417, ad Amm.i1.15413. Elaboration, embellishment. Cp. de Lsocr.
C. 20 od pevton Tavtaraal ye THY ‘lookpate.ov dywyiy e«BEBnKev, Gxapy
dé twa diacwle THS KaTacKEUAS TE Kal GEpVooyias exelvyns evOvpHpara.
Kal wountikwrepa pardov éoti 7) ddnOwurepa. de adm. vt dic. in Dem.
A O59 , Cae > , 2 s67 a 3 AL ,
C. 23 THs 6 areipoxadlas aitov ovderumot elnwoa THs ev Tats éerbETots
KatacKevais. V. éyxatackevos, p. 189 supra. There is a standing
antithesis between TPOTLK)) KATATKEUN and Kupta. pacts (p. g, n. I
supra), but xatacxevy is not entirely confined to diction (cp. Jebb,
Att. Or. i. 96 n., 100 n.). The usual meaning is well brought out in
. \ \ > , , »” a
a passage of the de S/saeo c. 7 Kat TO émiXeyopevov TovTw ETL wadAov
> , / > 4 c vn > / > a , \
GKATQAO KEVOV paivetar €lVGlL KAL, WS AV idaiTns TLS €LTTELV dvvaito, [70]
> a \ NBS , , \ cal > 2 X \
ELPNJLEVOV...... rapa O€ “loaiw Katerkevactat TO doKodv Elva aedes Kal
od A€Anbev OTe eott pytopikdv. Cp. Diog. Laert. vil. 59 KatacKevy dé
éote eLis exrrehevyvia Tov idtwrispov.—From this rhetorical use of
Katackevy 1s to be distinguished the logical (e.g. de Lysta c. 24,
a. vy. C. I1).
katopboiv. ad Pomp. 90 28, 945, 104 2, 104 3, 11411. Of correct
and successful writing. Cp. 7. vy. p. 202 (S.Vv. KatopGwpa).
kowwos. ad Amm.i. 56 16, 7419. ad Amm.i1. 158 4. Current,
ordinary.
GLOSSARY. 195
koworns. ad Pomp. 96 26. Familiar usage. Cp. Isocr. Antid.
316 THY THS Hwvyns KoworTynTa. So xowos ad Pomp. 124 25: cp. de
Lsocr. C. 11 Tots KUpLOLS Kal ovvnGect Kal KOLVOIS dvopLacw apporepot
Kexpyvtat, de Dinarcho c. 2 dvopata Kxowd Kai repitpéxovta (epitpe-
xovra = ‘current’).
Kopipos. ad Pomp. 98 5, ad Amm. 11.156 12. Llegant, superfine,
precious. Cp. de Lsocr. c. 12 cvpBovrAw be by rept wor€uov Kai eipnvns
Néyovte kat idwwryn Tov Tepi WuyAs TpExovTt Kivouvov év dikagTats TA Koma
Kal Geatpika kat peipakww0dn Taira od« olda yvTwa divaiTo av TapacxeiVv
wpedevav, padAov de olda ote Kal BAaBys av aitia yevorro. Norden,
op. cit. 1. p. 69 n. 1: “Kouwov zierlich, dann tberhaupt geistreich
(besser entsprechen franzdsich frécieux, englisch euphuism, die
italienischen concef/7) stammt aus der alten Sophistenzeit.”
kopos. ad Pomp. 110 11 (cp. 110 18). Sazzety.
kukrukds. ad Pomp. 126 8. Recurring, regular.
kuptos. ad Pomp. 98 13, 11425. Authoritative, accredited, current.
Cp. de Lysia c. 3 (dpery) 4 dia Tov Kupiwv TE Kai KoWwdv Kal ev pérw
Keyrevov dvopatwv éexdépovoa Ta voovpeva, de Thucyd. c. 22 «is Te THV
kupiay ppacw Kal cis THY TpoTiKyv, Aristot. Poetics Cc. 21 amav dé ovopa
€or 7) Kvptov 7) yA@TTa 7) weTahopa 7) KOopos 7) TETOLNMLEVOV 7) ETEKTETO-
pevov 7) tdypnucvov 7) enAaypévov. éyw Se Kpiov pev w& XpwVTaL
Exacta, yNortav b€ @ eTEpor, WoTE Havepov OTL Kal yAOTTAY Kal KUpLoV
civat dvvatov TO avd, pH) Tots adrots dé- TO yap olyvvov Kumptos peév
KUptov, nyiv d€ yA@tra. ‘The Latin equivalent for édvouata xvpia will
be ‘verba propria’: also ‘dominantia’ (Wilkins, £fzs¢les of Horace,
p- 380). Cp. 7. wy. p. 202 (s.v. KuptoAoyia).
Addos. ad Pomp. 98 5. Loguacious.
Nextukos. ad Pomp. 92 27, 112 28, 116 11. Usually joined with
some such noun as xapaxryp: belonging to the department of style
(as opposed to that of subject-matter, mpayyatixos). Cp. de Thucyd.
C. 34 dueAdpevos Kal Tavrnv Ouyn THY Gewplay cis TE TO TpayLATLKOY [LEpOS
‘ > ‘ /
K@l €is TO AEKTLKOV.
héits. ad Pomp. 98 26, etc. Style. Strictly Aéés refers to diction,
but (like @paois and éppyveia) it is often used in the general sense of
literary expression. It was one of the five parts into which the art
of rhetoric was sometimes divided : evpeous (¢xzventio), Takis (aispositio),
Nekts (elocutio), pvyjpn (memoria), vxoxpiors ( pronuntiatio).
13—2
196 DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSUS.
Nerds. ad Pomp. 96 24. Subtle, precise. Cp. Lat. suditilts,
with its three metaphorical senses of: (1) delicate, (2) precise,
(3) plain.
Ajppa. ad Amm. i. 54 12, dV dvayxatwv ovvayerar Anpparov, ‘is a
conclusion reached by indisputable data, presuppositions, premisses.
The expression is Aristotelian. Cp. 7. ty. p. 202.
Auyupss. ad Pomp. 98 4. Clear utterance (16 Avyvpov).
déyor. ad Pomp. 90 23, 90 25, 92 1, 92 9, 92 21, 941, 94 3, 94 6,
etc. Speeches, discourses, style, oratory, literature. Cp. 7. vy. Pp. 203.
For Aéyor in reference to Plato’s dialogues, cp. Aristot. Polit. ii. 6 76
pev obv mepurtov éxovar avTes of TOD SwKpatovs Noyor Kal TO Kopupov Kal
TO KaworTomov Kal TO CyTNTUKOV.
peyadomperns. ad Pomp. 102 28, 116 13, 124 25. Stately, grand.
Joined with vyydds and zapaxexiydvvevjevos in the first of these pas-
sages. Opposed to Autos in de adm. vi dic. in Dem. c. 8.
pepaisdns. ad Pomp. 98 21, ad Amm. ii. 156 9. With youthful
airs and graces, foppish, affected. 7 petpaxuddes is fully characterised in
x. tw. C. 3 § 4.70 dE peipaKxiWdes avTiKpus UrevavTiov ToIs peyeHeoL* TamELVOV
yap e& ddov Kal puxpovxov Kai TO OVTL KaKOV dyevvETTATOY. Tl WoT OV
TO peipaxiodes eat; 1) OpAOV ws TXoAGTTLK?) VONTLS, UTO TEepLepyacias
Ajyoura eis WuxpoTyta; dAtcHaivovor S eis TodTo TO yévos dpeyopevot
pev Tod TEpiTTOD Kal TETOLNMEVOU Kai pahioTa TOD nd€os, emoKeAXNovres O€
cis TO pwrikov Kal kaxdndov. See the excellent note on the word in
Norden, Antike Kunstprosa i. pp. 69, 70. Cp. Wilkins, Zpzstles of
Horace, p. 383: “iuvenentur, a word coined doubtless by Horace,
on the analogy of augurari, auspicari, interpretart, velitart, etc. (Roby
§ 961), to represent veanreverbar or petpaxteverOar.” So adulescen-
tiaris = veavievn, Norden 1. 70.
peratve. ad Pomp. 98 9. To blacken, obfuscate, obscure.
pddrwv. ad Amm. ii. 148 10. Future tense: xpovos.
wépos. ad Pomp. 104 2. Branch, department. Cp. 7. dy. p. 203.
peraBodry. ad Pomp. 110 20. Variety of style. Cp. 7. vy. p. 203.
peraopé. ad Amm. ii. 18418. Transferred use, strained use.
Here used in much the same sense as dvahopa, which is found in the
parallel passage of the de adm. vi dic. in Dem. Also: metaphor
(or simile), ad Amm. i. 66 109.
peroxy). ad Amm. ii. 14422. Participle. So peroxucoy dvopa
ibid. 148 12, and peroyixay (sc. dvopatwv s. popiwv) tid. 184 11.
|
;
GLOSSAR Y. 197
perovupnla. ad Pomp. 98 16. Metonymy. Cp. Cic. Orat. 93,
“hanc vradAayyv rhetores, quia quasi summutantur verba pro verbis,
petwvupiay grammatici vocant, quod nomina transferuntur” ; Quintil.
Inst. Or. viii. 6, 23, ‘‘nec procul ab hoc genere (sc. synecdoche)
discedit perwvupia, quae est nominis pro nomine positio. culus vis
est pro eo quod dicitur, causam propter quam dicitur ponere ; sed,
ut ait Cicero, vraAAaynv rhetores dicunt.” Sandys’ edition of Cic.
Orat. p. 103, “although metonymy may be regarded as coming under
the head of metaphor in its widest sense (de Orat. ili. 169 ad fin.),
there is a distinction. In metaphor another and a figurative expres-
sion takes the place of the literal one; in mefonymy another literal
expression (especially a name) is substituted for the proper literal
one.”
ptypo. ad Pomp.9618. A blend, a combination: of two different
styles artificially united.
poptov. ad Amm. il. 138414,18817. Fart of speech. 7a pnyatixa
popia THS AcEews (in 1388 17) = partes orationis verbales. Cp. de Comp.
C. 7, avTa Ta TpOTa popia Kal aToLxeia THs A€Eews, ibid. C. 17 TGV ovopa
Kal pyua Kai a\Xo popiov ELews.
vonpa. ad Amm. il. 134 21, 186 7,1525. Thought, thought as
expressed in a sentence. In 18415 Reiske retains the MS. reading
vonuatwv, and translates év d€ tots ouvdetiKois Kai tots mpoberiKots
poptots Kal ére paddAov ev Tois duap$potor Tas THv vonpatwv dvvapes
Toujtov TpoTov éveLovovagwy by “in coniunctionibus et praeposition-
ibus, lis praesertim quae sententiarum robur et vim distinguunt,
poetica prorsus utitur licentia.”
vots. ad Pomp. 98 10,112 25. Mind; meaning.
tévos. ad Pomp. 9814, ad Amm. ii.13218. Strange, foreign. The
attraction which 76 €evxdv had for the Athenians may be illustrated
from Aristot. Aer. iil. 2, 3 516 det rovety E€vyv THv bidAekTov: Gavacrat
yap Tov arovrwy ciciv: nov b€ TO GavpacTor, ill. 2, 8 TO Gades Kai TO
Ov Kal TO Eevixov éxer pariora y peTadopa, lll. 7, II Ta Seva pddwra
adppotte éyovte tafytixds, and also from Diod. Sic. Bzd/. His¢.
xl. 53 (of Gorgias) to Eevi€ovte THs AcLews eLérAnke Tors “AOPnvatovs
ovras evpueis kal PitoAoyous. mTpdTos yap éxpyoato THs héLews TXNLA-
TUTMOLS TEpLTTOTEpoLs, Kal TH HiAroTExvia duadepovoew avTérors Kai ico-
KwAos Kal Tapicols Kal dpovoTeAEtToLs, Kal TIT ETEpOLs TOLOUTOLS, a TOTE
ev bua TO E€voy THs KatacKevns arodoyys WéLovro, viv S€ Teptepylav Exe
5 a ‘ , , , \ , ,
OKEL, Kal paiverau Katayé\acrov, mAEovaKts Kal KATAKOPWS TiUOEevov.
198 DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSUS.
[The above passages are quoted in Jebb’s Attic Orators i. pp. Cxxv,
exxvi. The last, because of its general importance for the purpose of
this Glossary, is given here at greater length. |
dyxos. ad Pomp. 102 9. Pomp. dyxos (like é€vos supra) is a
term which may be used in a complimentary (cp. 7. Ux. p. 204) or a
depreciatory sense, according to the standpoint of the critic. Volkmann
(Riet. d. Gr. u. Rém. p. 557) errs in giving oy«os as an exact synonym
of jéyefos, and in adding “das Wort dyxos bezeichnet bei den
Rhetoren keineswegs, wie unser Schwulst, etwas schlechtes, sondern
das os magnum, die sublimitas, s. Goller zu Demetr. S. 113. Chrysost.
de sacerd. iv. p. 305, 50: €@ pev tHV AeoTyTa “looKpdtous darprovV Kat
tov Anpoobévors dyKkov Kal Tv Oovkvdidov cepvoryta Kal to [LAatwvos
twos. Vom oyxos des Aeschylus sprach ja schon Sophokles nach
Plut. de prof. in virt. 7 p. 79 B.”
otxovopia. ad Pomp. 116 22, 1225. Arrangement of material.
Cp. Quintil. Zzst. Or. iii. 3, 9: ‘“ceconomiae, quae Graece appellata
ex cura rerum domesticarum et hic per abusionem posita nomine
Latino caret.”
poadys. ad Pomp. 114 26, 118 24, 120 6, 1269 (6poecdea).
Uniform, wanting in variety.
dvopa. ad Pomp. 96 26, 98 11, 98 12, 98 13, ad Amm. ii. 134 1,
134 2 (dvoparixds), 1384 3, 134 r1 (dvopatiKov : Cp. S.V. peToxy Supra),
136 6, 188 3, 188 4, 144 21, 148 12. Word, noun. Wilkins for.
IF Os oes GUT inc sace verba: GvopaTa...... pyyara, ‘nouns and
verbs,’ covered with Plato the whole of language (cp. Cvaty/. 431 B,
Aoyou yap Tov, ws eyopat, y TovTwv [fpyyatwv Kal évopatwv| EvvOects
éotw: cp. 425 a): and though Aristotle added the ovvdeopos and the
Stoics completed the ‘parts of speech,’ the names of the two chief
classes were often used in the same wide sense, as here.”
Spyavov. ad Amm. il. 186 10. Snstrument, organ. Ernesti, of.
cit. p. 233: “opyava et xpwyara distinguit, quorum illa formam
externam, haec vim et significationem verbis addunt.”
ov8érepos. ad Amm. ii. 184 9, 144 7, 144 17. Of the neuter
gender. The triple division of the genders (yevy) into GppEVLKOV,
OndvKov, ovd€eTEpov 1S NO doubt of Stoic origin.
maOntixos, ad Amm. ii. 184 6, 140 15,1421. Passive (aOytuKov
pypa). See also under za6os.
médos. ad Pomp. 114 13, 124 10. Passions, emotions. So TO
xabytixcv (ad Amm. ii. 186 15)=the power of stirring the emottons.
GLOSSAR Y. 199
Cp. Cic. Orat. c. 37, ‘duo sunt enim, quae bene tractata ab oratore
admirabilem eloquentiam faciant ; quorum alterum est, quod Graeci
yOxov vocant, ad naturas et ad mores et ad omnem vitae consue-
tudinem adcommodatum ; alterum, quod eidem za6yrixdv nominant,
quo perturbantur animi et concitantur, in quo uno regnat oratio.”
Sandys’ note ad /oc. should be consulted. Volkmann Rher. 273:
“Das Griechische 7a8os—August. de Civ. Der viii. 147, bemerkt mit
Recht: verdum de verbo wabos passio diceretur, motus animt contra
rationem—wurde allgemein Lateinisch durch affectus wiedergegeben.”
masons. ad Pomp. 126 14. Puerile. From maidiov: cp. macda-
pwwons. [In Aristot. Zth. Nic. vii. 8, 11508 it is from zadia: doxee
d€ Kal 6 madiwdys axoAagTos ecivat, Eo dE palaKkos* 7 yap Tadd aveois
or, <irep avaravors. |
mavnyupikds. ad Pomp. 120 24. Panegyrical.
mapadeypa. ad Amm. i. 6224. An ‘example’ Cp. Aristot.
Rhet. i. 2, 8 (on p. 64 supra).
mapakexwSuveupévos. ad Pomp.1041. Venturesome, audacious. Cp.
Aristoph. Ran. 98, OFTLS pbeyEerar | TOLOUTOVL TL TOpAk EKLVOUVEV/LEVOV.
mapepBory. ad Pomp. 126 13, ad Amm. i. 152 24. Lnsertion,
digression, episode. ‘The same meaning as rapéxBaors and rapevOyx7.
Reiske (vi. p. 1138) thinks that the MS. reading zapafodas can be
retained, but he does not give any other example of the sense he
would here assign to the word: ‘‘zapaBoAas videtur appellare 7a
mapepBeBAnpeva, quae alli erewodia appellant, adscititias, aliunde
petitas, praeter rem ingestas, a re alienas narrationes.”
mapéurrwcts. ad Amm. ii. 184 22. J/nsertion. at petasd tapesrror-
oes = parentheses, 152 6 tid.
maptowors. ad Amm.ii.186 1, 156 10. Parallelism in structure.
Sandys, Cz. Orat. p. 45: “The simplest classification of these figures
is that represented in the following table :—
(i) dvri#eovs = parallelism in sense.
(ii) maptowors = parallelism in structure.
(iil) mapopotwors = parallelism in sound.
(ii1) is subdivided into three species :—
< /
(1) épovoxdrapxrov.
(2) dpovorédevtor.
(3) mapovopacia,”
200 DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSUS.
Cp. de Lysia c. 14 tév repli tas dvTieoas Kal Tapicdces Kal Tapo-
powoes Kal TA TaparAnoia TovTAs oxHpaTa SiecrovdaKdtwv, which is
translated as follows in Desrousseaux-Egger’s edition of the de Lysia:
“ceux qui travaillent les antithéses, les symétries, les ressemblances de
mots et autres figures semblables.” Aristotle et. iii. 9, 9 dvreots
fev OvV TO TOLOdTOY eaTLV, Tapiowors 8 edy iva TA KdAQ, Tapopoiwors 8
é€dv Omoia Ta ExxaTa exy Exdtepov TO KaXOoV. See also Rhet. ad Alex.
26—28. In both the passages of the ad Amm. ii. there is a special
reference to the employment of these figures by Gorgias and his school.
tmapopolwois. ad Amm. i. 1861, 156 10. Parallelism in sound.
See under zap/cwors.
mapovopacia. ad Amm. i. 1386 2. Assonance, play on words. See
under zaptowors. Cp. Cic. Orat. 135 “cum...verba...leviter com-
mutata ponuntur”; id. de Orat. ill. 54, 206 “paullum immutatum
verbum atque deflexum”; Aristot. /he?. iii. 11, 6 Ta mapa ypappo
oxoppata. Annominatio is the Latin equivalent: cp. <Cornificius>
ad Ferennium iv. 29 “annominatio est, cum ad idem verbum et ad
idem nomen acceditur commutatione unius litterae aut litterarum ;
aut ad res dissimiles similia verba accommodantur.”
mapdv. ad Amm. i. 148 9. Present tense: ypovos.
waxts. ad Pomp. 98 9. Coarse, heavy. Cp. de TLsaeo c. 19
"AdxSapavta b€ Tov axovaotiy abrod maxttepov ovta Thy hééw. Cp:
m. ww. C. 29 etfis yap dBreues tpoorirrel, Koupodoyias te olov Kat
maxvtatov. Cic. Ora?¢. viii. 25 “asciverunt aptum suis auribus
opimum quoddam et tamquam adipatae dictionis genus,” where
Sandys remarks ‘‘Similarly elsewhere varieties of style are dis-
criminated with the help of metaphors borrowed from the human
body, its blood, bones, sinews, muscles, etc., see in Quint. x. 1 $$ 36
and 60 (with Mayor’s notes), and esp. the elaborate comparison in
Tac. dial. de orat. 21 ‘oratio autem, sicut corpus hominis, ea demum
pulchra est in qua non eminent venae nec ossa numerantur, sed
temperatus ac bonus sanguis implet membra et exsurgit toris ipsosque
nervos rubor tegit et decor commendat’.”
metés. ad Amm. il. 182 13. Prosaic. Cp. Quint. x. 1 § 81.
wed. ad Pomp. 114 21. Persuastiveness.
meroinpévos. . aa Pomp. 9814. Artificial, specially coined. Cp.
Aristot. Poet. xxl. g mwerompévov 8 éotiv 6 ddAws pi Kadovpevov 76
TWoVv avTos TiHeTaL 6 ToLNTHS, SoKEl yap Evia. elval ToLadTA, OLOV TA KEépata
‘ > ~
épviyas Kal Tov tepéa apnrypa.
GLOSSAR Y. 201
meplepyos. ad Pomp. 118 27. Over-wrought, curious. Cp. de Lysia
c. 6 tavryv 6Alyou pev epipyoavto, Anpoobevns db Kal iepeBadeto
TAnV odx OUTWS erLELKdS OSE APeAds Worep Avolas ypnoapEvos avTH,
GANA Tepi_pyws Kal muxkpds. Aeschines taunted Demosthenes with
meptepyta and 16 mixpov: de adm. vi dic. in Dem. c. 55 & b€ ye Aioxivys
Tept avirod ypdde acvKopavtov, worep Epyv, ToTeE pev ws TiKpOts Kal
TeEplepyors GvOpact Xpwpmevor, ToTE 5 ws andéor Kal Hoptikols, padias Exet
Tas amodoyias. See also zbid. c. 35. In de Lysiac. 15 adedys and
amepiepyos are found conjoined. Wepéepyos is good Modern Greek
(both literary and colloquial) in the sense of ‘curious’ or ‘ strange.’
meplodos. ad Pomp. 120 7, 126 9, ad Amm. ii. 152 19. Period.
Cp. Aristot. her. ili. 9, 3 A€yw be weplodov kw Exovcav apyiy Kal
tehevtyv aityv Kal avtnv Kal péyefos evovvorrov. With the last part
of Aristotle’s definition may be compared Dionysius’ view (de Comp.
c. 23) that, in the yAadupa Kai avOynpa oivGeots, the repicdov xpovos
should be ov rveipa reAevcov avdpos Kparnoet.
meproxy. ad Pomp. 110 27. Section. Cp. the use of repixory.
mepittos. ad Pomp. 1007. Unusual, far-feiched, ‘exquisite. The
word is opposed to azépittos (de adm. vi dic. in Dem. c. 8), and to
Kowos kat Onpwdns (7. VW. Cc. 40, 2). Its meaning is sufficiently defined
by such a sentence as: dexeoOw dé tis THY Teptepylav TOV évopatwv U7
airod <Aeyopevnyv> A€yecGar vuvi TepitTHV Epyaciav Kat e&nAaypevnv
Tov ev ee (de adm, vi c. 56). The noun zepittoAoyia is found in ad
Pomp. 98 5.
meplppacis. ad Pomp.98 12. LPeriphrasts, circumlocution.
mOaves. ad Amm.i.6616. Persuasive, plausible.
muxpos. ad Pomp.1149. Repellent, odious: the opposite of dvs.
Cp. mixpa (112 23 zbzd.) = harsh.—ro ruxpov (ad Amm. il. 186 13), and
y mixporns (ad Pomp. 124 28), = incisiveness, pungency.
mivos. ad Pomp. 98 1. Mellowing deposit, tinge of antiquity.
Cp. de adm. vi dic. in Dem. c. 39 diadpaiverar b€ tis dpota Kav tovrous
evyéveta Kal wemvoTys appovias TOV apxatov duatrovea Tivor, ibid. C. 44
avxpod peatov «iva Kal Tivov, tid. Cc. 45 THs pev yOoelas ovvGecews
eAatTw poipav éxovoas, THs O€ avoTnpas Kal TeTIVWpEVNS TELW, We Comp.
C. 22 nota avOnpa, peyadoppwv, aifexacros, axopwevtos, TOV apxXaicpov
Kai Tov mivov éxovoa KadddXos, thid. Cc. 22 edt Kal avoTnpay TEeTOIKE
THV Gppoviav, tid. Cc. 23 ocxynpacl Te ov Tols apxatompeTeatatots, ovd
doo 7) GEnvoTns Tis 7) Bapos 7) Tivos TpoceoTLY, GAA Tots TpYdeEpots Kal
padakois ws Ta TOAAG xpHobar pire, Cic. ad Att. xiv. 7 (Tyrrell and
202 DIONYSIUS OF FHALICARNASSUS.
Purser v. 232) ‘fa Cicerone mihi litterae sane werwwpeévac et bene
longae. ceterum autem vel fingi possunt: zivos litterarum significat
doctiorem,” 747d. xv. 16 a “tandem a Cicerone tabellarius, et meher-
cule litterae rerwwpévws (‘in the true classic style,’ Tyrrell and
Purser v. 299) scriptae, quod ipsum zpoxornv aliquam significat,
itemque ceterl praeclara scribunt.” Plut. Vit. Alex. c. 4: "AwedARs
S€ ypadwv tov Kepavvodopov ovk éuyunTato THY Xpoav, AAA davoTepov
Kal weruwmevov eroinoev. The foregoing passages (particularly that
of Plutarch) point to the metaphor being that of the oxidation of
bronze statues, weather-marked and mellowed, bearing upon them
the patina so highly prized by the connoisseur. A scholium on
ad Fomp. 98 x (and on the corresponding passage of the de adm.
wt dic. in Dem.) seems to suggest a different explanation: zivos 6
puros ToL 6 émiKElmevos YVOUs WS er pHAWY Kal aztwy Kal dapacKnVar.
—See also 7. wy. p. 199 (etrivea), and (for the quantity of zivos)
Soph. Oed. C. 1259 yepwv yepovte TVYKATOKYKEV TiVOS. 4
For the use of art-analogies by the Greek rhetoricians, cp.
E. Bertrand De Pictura et Sculptura apud Veteres Rhetores,
J. Brzoska De Canone Decem Oratorum Atticorum Quaestiones
(appendix), J. E. Sandys Czc. Orat. pp. lxxiii, Ixxiv, F. Blass Griech.
Bereds. pp..222—231, H. Nettleship Lectures and Essays (Second
Series) pp. 54—56, B. Bosanquet Avstory of Aesthetic, pp. 102, 103.
miotis, ad Amm. i. 54 11, ad Amm. uu. 180 16. Proof. In
de Lysia c. 19 (Tov kahoupevwv evtéxvwv Tictewv), we have a reference
to the Anistotelian division of wiores into atexvou and évtexvou: Twv
d€ wioTeEwy ai ev atexvol eiow ai 8 evtexvor. artexva b€ A€yw oa pi)
dv qpaOv rerdpirtat aAAG TpoiTNpXEV, lov papTupes Bacavor cvyypadai
Kal 00a ToLtavTa, evTexva be doa bia THS peHodov Kai bv Hudv KaTacKEva-
cOnvat dvvatov, wate bet TovtTwv Tois pev xpnoacbar Ta Be evpetv
(Aristot. het. 1. 2, 2).
mracpa, ad Pomp.118 7. Mould, form, manner. Cp. de Comp.
c. 4 (passage quoted on p. 11 n. 3 supra), and zm. vw. c. 15, 8.
tAnPvvtixcs. ad Amm. 1.13847. Plural.
moutixcs. ad Amm. ii. 140 16, 142 3. Active: dpactyptos, évep-
yntixos. In ad Amm. 11.186 10, 136 21 zomrtixos probably means
artificial or elaborate, rather than simply foetical: so Ernesti p. 275.
But cp. ad Amm. u. 134 16.
mouthdo. ad Fomp. 116 25. To embroider, diversify.
moukthos. ad Fomp. 110 11,110 20. Varied.
GLOSSAR Y. 203
moditixds. ad Amm. 1. 54 17, ad Pomp. 92 8, 92 21, 126 10.
Public, civil: used with dOyos, or Aoyou, in the sense of civil oratory,
—the practical eloquence which is applied to public affairs, as
distinguished from that of the school. oActixds Aoyos, or the oratory
of public life, covers therefore a more extensive field than political
oratory (oyos Snpyyoptxos). Indeed, in the so-called Ahetorica ad
Alexandrum the word pyropixy is not found, its place being taken by
Aoyou rohitikol: e.g. dvo0 yevy THV ToITLKGY ciate Oywr, TO weY BNpNYyoO-
pikov, TO d€ dixavixov (Rhet. ad Alex., init.). By Philodemus, the
representative of the Epicurean rhetoric, the ézidecxtixdy yévos is
classed as coduotixds Aoyos. It was the great ambition of Dionysius
to revive the conception of oratory as woActiKds Adyos, in which term
he would include not only the yevos OnpNyopiKov and the yevos
dixavixov, but also any examples of the yévos émideuxtixov which had
a public bearing: the yévos émdexrixov as a whole (including p<6o0des
yeveOaxav, ériGarapiov, éritadiwv x.t.d.) he would, like Philodemus,
regard as goduotixov. Dionysius’ lost treatise vrép tHs oAutiKAs
pirocopias (vide p. 7 supra) did not, therefore, deal with ‘ political
philosophy’ in our sense of the words, but with that civil and cultured
oratory the practice of which befits the citizen of a free state: it was
a defence of the phzlosophia civilis of Isocrates.—Writers unversed in
the technical language of Greek rhetoric have sometimes made the
strange mistake of taking xpatictos 67 wavtwy Tév ToALTLKOV OywY
0 Mevégevos (de adm. vi dic. in Dem. c. 23) to mean “the Menexenus
is far the best of all the political discourses (i.e. the Republic among
others: cp. Thrasyllus’ division) of Plato,” instead of rendering “the
Menexenus is claimed (sc. by some infatuated admirers of Plato) to
be the finest specimen of civil oratory.” Cp. MJenex. (ad fin.) ad’
OTws pov fy KaTEpeEls, iva Kal avbis Gor toAAOVS Kal KaAovds Aoyous Tap’
auTis ToAiTiKods amayyéAXw.
todupoppos. ad Pomp. 12216. Multiform, many-sided.
modvtdokos. ad Amm. il. 1384 23. Tangled, involved. Cp. wodv-
mXoxov vonwa, Aristoph. Zhesm. 463 and modvrAoKwrépas yuvarkos
tbhid. 434.
modutpotia, ad Amm. ii. 136 24. Variety.
mopmuds. ad Pomp. 124 26. Processional, stately.
mpaypatixés. ad Pomp. 9228, 102 4, 112 27, 116 11, 116 27
124 22,126 12. Relating to subject-matter: Opp. AeKTuKos.
_ mpérov. ad Pomp. 114 25. Propriety.
204 DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSUS.
mperadys. ad Pomp. 116 23. Becoming.
mpoberis. ad Amm. ii. 182 1,182 8. Statement, proposition
mpoberixos. ad Amm. ii. 1384 14. Preposition: with poprov.
mpoolniov. ad Amm. il. 1529. Introduction.
mpoonyopla. ad Amm. il. 144 21, 146 6, 1345 (xpoonyopixdr).
Common noun, appellative-—For the history of the parts of speech,
cp. Dionys. Hal. de Comp. c. 2, tadta (croyeia) 8& Oeodéxrys peev Kal
"ApiotoreXys Kal of Kar’ éxeivous giiocodiyoavres Tos Xpovovs apt TpLav
Zponyayov, dvopata Kal pyuata Kal avvderpmouvs mpuaTa wépn THS A€LEwWS
mowovvTes. ot d€ pet aiTods yevomevolr, Kal paltota of TAS Yrwikys
aipesews yemoves Ews TeTTApwv TpoviBacar, Xwpioavres amo TOV
avvdecpwv Ta apOoa. i0” of petayevéeorepor Ta Tpoonyoptka dehovres
a0 TOV GvomaTiKdY TeVTE aTEpyvavTO TA TpOTA pépy. Erepor S& Kab
TAS avTwvUuias atolevavTEs ard Tov évo“aTwY exToV OTOLXELOV _TOUTO
eroinoav. of O& Kal Ta erippynyara dueiAov amo TOY pyuatwy Kal Tas
Tpobeoes ard Tov Gvvdecpwv Kal Tas peTOXaS ad TOV TPOTNYOPLKOV.
Dionysius Thrax, 47s Grammatica, p. 23 Uhlig, rod 8 Aoyou pépn
€oTlV OxTw* Ovopa, pia, "eToXy, ApOpov, avTwvupia, tpdbecrs, erippyua,
aivdecpos. 1 yap tpoonyopia ws etdos TA dvopate UroBéBAnra. It
would appear from these statements that ovoya might include zpoon-
yopia, while zpoonyopia could cover participles (jzeroxa/) and adjectives
(ériHera) as well as common nouns.—The history of Greek Grammar
in ancient times is traced in Steinthal’s Geschichte der Sprachwissen-
schaft bei den Griechen und Rémern.
mpocwtov. ad Amm. il. 1384 17, 150 3. Person. Same sense as
copa 150 15.
mracis. ad Amm. il. 184 11, 146 7, 146 14. Case.
muxvos. ad Pomp. 118 27, ad Amm. ii. 18613. Terse.
pjpa. ad Amm. ii. 134 3, 134 6, 146 21. Verb. So rd pnyarixdv
= verbal form, 134 2, and ra pnpatixa popia tis AéEews 188 17.
pytoptky. ad Pomp. 96 10 etc. Rhetoric. See under didrd0aodos,
and under zodutikos.
capyvea. ad Pomp. 96 26. Perspicuity.
capris. ad Pomp. 118 3. Clear. [acapys=obscure: ad Pomp.
110 28.]
onpaivey. ad Amm. il. 184 13 (70 onpaivov: tod onpatvovtos
134 12), 184 12 (70 onpawopevov), 148 16, 148 21. 7d onpaivov =the
expression: 70 onpawwopevov =the thing signified, the sense.
GLOSSAR Y.
tn
.@)
un
onpacta. ad Amm. ii. 138612. Expression.
onpecov. ad Amm. i. 54 10: sign, inaication. Cp. Aristot. Rhet.
1. 2, 14 A€yerar yap eévOvpnpata e& cixotwv Kal onpetwv. See also
under év@vunpa p. 190 supra.
onpewdys. ad Pomp. 118 26. Peculiar, cryptic, portentous. Cp.
de TIsocr. c. 2 kat yap aun mepevyev ATNPXALOLEVOV Kal ONLeemoav
ovopatwv THY areipoKad iar.
onpelwors. ad Amm. il. 138418. Lxpression.
oKdnpos. ad Pomp.9817. Harsh.
okodos. ad Amm. il. 18423. Tortuous.
godouirpds. ad Amm. il. 134 19, 146 15 (codorkilev). Solecism.
See Volkmann Phet. der Griechen u. Romer p. 396 (with note).
otpipves. ad Amm. 11. 18613. Firm, solid: the reference being
to the close texture of the language of Thucydides. But it may be
doubted whether in this and similar passages orpudvos is not the
right reading. Cp. Jebb, At. Or. 1. 35: “He (sc. Dionysius in de
Thucyd. c. 53) adds 76 orpvdvov, which seems to be a metaphor of
the same kind as avornpov, and to mean ‘his biting flavour.’” See
also de adm. vi dic. in Dem. c. 34, de Comp. c. 22.
orpoyywdos. ad Pomp. 118 27. Compact, rounded, terse. Lat.
rotundus. Cp. de adm. vi dic. in Dem. c. 43 tTav b& wepwduv at péev
ciaw evKopvpor Kal otpoyyvAa, worep amd Topvov, ibid. c. 18 9 8
evaywvios oTpoyyvAn Te eivat BovAerar Kal wvyKEKpoTNnuEern Kal pndev
éxovoa KoATades: also ibid. c. 19, de Lsocr. c. 2, de Lys. cc. 6, 13.
Wie we fan: iv. 3, 7 “apte ac rotunde,” B7uvz. 272 “verborum et
delectus elegans et apta et quasi rotunda constructio.” In Aristoph.
Fragm. 397 the reference is to the style of Euripides: xposar yap
avTOV TOU TTOMATOS TH OTpOyyVAY.
cvyypadeds. ad Pomp. 106 27,11414,11417, Historian. Diony-
sius uses in the same sense avip tatopixos (ad Pomp. 110 4, 110 24) and
Noyoypador (‘chroniclers,’ or perhaps rather ‘ prose-writers,’ de Comp.
c. 16). ovyypades is also used by Dionysius (e.g. de adm. vi dic. in
Dem. c. 37, de Thucyd. c. 1) of a prose-writer, as distinguished from
mouTys. Cp. 7. vp. p. 207.
avyxpicis. ad Pomp. 929, 92 18. Comparison. So avyxpiver,
ibid. 94 6.
ovdkaBy. ad Pomp. 11013. Syllable.
206 DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSUS.
ovdoyrpds. ad Amm. i. 64 1. Syllogism. See under evOvpnpa
p- 190 supra.
ovpBovdrevtixds. ad. Pomp. 120 25. Deliberative. With reference
to the three yevy of rhetoric: ovpBovAevtixov, duxavexdv, érideuTuKov.
cuptroky. ad Pomp. 126 8. Jntertwining, blending: sc. tov
povynevTwv ypaupatrwv. What Dionysius seems to mean is that there
would have been more rugged force in the best passages of
Theopompus if he had occasionally allowed the ovyxpovors, or
clashing, of vowels.
ovaywyy. ad Pomp.1229. Collection.
ovvSerikds. ad Amm. 1.18414. Conjunction: with poprov.
ovvydaa. ad Amm. il. 1465. Usage.
cvvi Ons. ad Pomp. 1183. Customary, ordinary.
ovvtaiis. ad Amm.1.6211. Treatise, work.
owtaccerbar. ad Amm.i. 7211, etc. To compose.
ovvtopia. ad Pomp. 1146. Conciseness.
cvotpepev. ad Pomp. 9811. To compress.
- oxnpa. ad Pomp. 102 16, 120 4,138417. Migure. Jebb, At. Or.
1. 29, ‘‘these (the technical figures of rhetoric) have been well dis-
tinguished as ‘figures of language’ (oxypara Aé€ews) and ‘figures of
thought’ («xnpa7a dvavocas)—the first class including various forms of
assonance and of artificial symmetry between clauses; the second
including irony, abrupt pauses, feigned perplexity, rhetorical question
and so forth. Caecilius of Calacte [was] the author of this distinc-
tion.” zdzd. li. 64, n. 2, “Quintilian (ix. 3, § 2) subdivides the
‘figures of language’ as (1) grammatical—mere jeculiarities of
pathology or syntax, with no rhetorical purpose—e.g. the schema
Pindaricum: (2) rhetorical—where a certain effect is meant to be
wrought by the combination.” id. p. 63, “a ‘figure’ (sc. as
distinguished from a ‘trope’) is an affair of whole clauses or sen-
tences.” Cic. Brut. 69 “ornari orationem Graeci putant, si verborum
immutationibus utantur, quos appellant zpdzovs, et sententiarum ora-
tionisque formis quae vocant oynpara.”
oxnparitey. ad Pomp. 120 8, ad Amm. ii. 188 18, 140 3, 146 1x,
146 6, 14617, 152 19. Zo construct, compose. oxnparilew seems
sometimes to cover the distribution and arrangement of all the
elements of composition. Adyos éoxnpatirpévos =oratio figurata, le
aiscours figure.
GLOSSARY. 207
oxypaticpos. ad Pomp. 120 4, 126 10, ad Amm. ii. 182 20, 186 24,
148 11, 156 9. Construction, composition: Vemploi de tours de phrase.
Ga, de Comp. routs) 1) prev 51) Tept TV appwoynv TOV KwWAwWV Gewpia TOLAUT)’
y S€ rept TOV oXNMaTIGpPOV TOdaTy ; OiK ~aTW cis TpOTOS THS Exopas
TOV vonpatwv: GAAG Ta pev Ws aTropavopevor Néyowev, TA HE Ws BLaTro-
povvres, TA 6€ ws TuVOarvopervoL, TA OE Ws EdyojeEVoL, TA OE WS ELTATTOVTES,
Ta O€ ws UroTepevol, TA OE GAAWS TwWS CXNMaTILovTES: ois akoAOVOWS Kal
av NeEw Tepopeba oxnpartice. modXoi dé dyrov oxnpaTiTpol Kai THs
A€Eews cial, WoTEP Kal THS diavolas: os ody oloV TE KEepaawodus Tept-
haBeiv: tows d€ Kai ateipor, Tepi dv wodds 6 Noyos, Kal Babeia 7 Hewpia.
For a general discussion of oxxjpara, oynparilev and oynpatiopos,
see Ernesti Lexicon Technologiae Graecorum Rhetoricae pp. 338—344,
and Volkmann Phetorik der Griechen und Romer pp. 456 ff.
copa. ad Amm. 1.15015. Person. Same sense as rpoocwrov
150 3.
répis. ad Pomp. 114 21. Charm, allurement.
réxvn. ad Amm. ii. 1382 2. Manual of rhetoric. ai téxvar, or
ai pytopixal réxvar, is used specially of the Rhetoric of Aristotle:
cp. ad Amm. i. 529, 541, 548, etc.; de Comp. c. 25 év TH TplTy
BvBXw tSv pytopiKav TExVov).
texvices. ad Amm.i.70 10. Technical, skilful.
tovos. ad Pomp. 114 18,126 1. Lnergy.
womos. ad Amm.i. 745, 8017. TZopic. The loci commuzies, or
common-places of rhetoric; the general heads under which may be
grouped arguments applicable to particular circumstances.
tpaxts. ad Amm. 1. 136 11.
tpomuds. ad Pomp. 98 15, 102 6, ad Amm. 1.18217. Tropical,
Jigurative. For the strict meaning of ‘trope,’ see previous page, and
further cp. Jebb Azt. O7. il. 59.
timos. ad Pomp. 116 28. form, style. Cp. Hermog. zept idewv
ll. p. 415 (Spengel), kai dAws ebperns kai apynyos yevéoOar Tod TiToU
tov woAtekod, and Greilich Deonysius Halicarnassensis quibus potis-
simum vocabults etc. pp. 19g—24.
imdbeots. ad Pomp. 9224. Subject, theme.
trobykyn. ad Pomp.120 26. Precept, homily, treatise.
dropvnparicpds. ad Amm. ii. 18011. Memoir, essay. Cp. 7. wv.
p. 208; Blass, Griech. Bereds. p. 172 n. 2; de Comp. c. 3 uo &
lal a , lal
bropvycews evexa A€yovte apKel TadTa pova cipyaOa.
208 DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSUS.
iymrds. ad Pomp. 96 18, 100 25, 102 28,124 25. levated. So
vos, elevation of style, 104 5, 118 5 zhid.: cp. 7. dW. pp. 209, 210.
didvOpwros. ad Pomp. 96 22. Attractive, winning.
diidcopos pytopiky. ad Pomp. 96 9, 122 24. Philosophical, or
scientific, rhetoric. The reference is to the old methodical Attic
rhetoric (that of Isocrates especially), as distinguished from the later
and purely empirical Asiatic rhetoric, to which Dionysius applies
the epithet auafys (see p. 44 supra). For the wide sense of ¢uAo-
copia, cp. Jebb Azz. Or. il. 36 ff., 439, 444. Dionysius’ high ideal
of the training which the student of 7 diAdcodos pyropixy must under-
go may be inferred from ad Pomp. 122 24.
poBepds. ad Pomp. 116 4, ad Amm. i. 1386 14. Awe-inspiring.
goptixds. ad Pomp. 92 29. Vulgar, banal.
pacts. ad Pomp. 96 22. Style, expression.
povies. ad Pomp. 126 8. Vocal. ra bwovyevta ypappara = vowels.
xapaxtip. ad Pomp. 96 12, 96 18, 96 20, 100 24, 114 3, 116 11,
118 15, 124 23, ad Amm. 11. 130 5, 180 16, 180 17, 182 13, 136 16,
156 11. Characteristic stamp. Cp. Cic. Orat. 36 “sed in omni re
difficillimum est formam, qui xapaxrtnp Graece dicitur, exponere
optimi, quod aliud aliis videtur optimum,” where Sandys annotates :
“the formal type of what is ideally the best, that on which the
‘idea’ of good is clearly stamped like the impression of a die on
a coin. The usual Latin equivalent for yapaxryp in this sense is
nota (46), but forma is here adopted in consequence of its having
been already used in connexion with Cicero’s application of the
Platonic doctrine of ideas.” See also zé¢d. 134, and Greilich of. cit.
pp. 24—28.
xpsvos. ad Amm. il. 184 18, 146 21. Tense.
xpopa. ad Amm. 11. 186 12. Colour. Ernesti of. cit. p. 384:
“ Dionysio in Ep. 2 ad Amm. cap. 2 p. 793 xypopa THs A€fews dicitur
is color, vel ea forma et ratio elocutionis, qua in sententiis imprimis
vel severitas vel gravitas vel acerbitas vel vehementia aliave illius vis
et indoles apparet: Colorit, Character des Ausdrucks in Ricksicht
auf Sinn und Gedanken.” Cp. Greilich of. ct. pp. 31—33.
Yuxaywyla. ad Pomp. 122 21. Persuasion, gratification. Probably
Dionysius recalls Plato’s Phaedrus 261 A ap ovv ov 70 pev OAov 7
pytopiky av ein tTéxvn Woxaywyia tis bua Adywv «.7.d., ibid. 355 C ereidy
Aoyou Svvapus Tvyxaver Woxaywyia ova, Tov peANovTa pyTopiKoV éoerGar
avaykn cidévar Wuyn ova elon EXEL.
Woxpds. ad Amm.i. 6614. Frigid. Cp. Norden of. civ. i. 69.
PUBEIOGRAPHY OF THE SCRIPTA
hod LORCA.
It is hoped that the following bibliographical list, which has not
been confined to the ‘Three Literary Letters’ but covers the
rhetorical writings generally, will be found fairly complete by the
student who uses it. With one or two unavoidable exceptions, the
editor has consulted all the books and articles included in it. The
literature of the subject is scattered and unusually difficult to control.
l. EDITIONS AND TRANSLATIONS IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER.
R. Estienne. Avorvvaiov rod ‘“AAukapvacoéws “Pwparxys ’Apxaco-
Aoytas BiBria Seka. Dionysit Halicarnasset Antiguitatum Roman-
arum lib. x. (Avovvoiov...... Tepi cuvGecews dvopatwv mpos Povdov. Tod
avTOv THS pyTopiKHs TéExvNs Kehadaa Twa Tpds Exexparynv.—Tod airod
TEpt TOD Oovkvodidov idwyatwv, pds “Appaiov.—Dionysi...... de compo-
sitione, etc.. 1547.) Gr. 2 pt. Lx officina Rob. Stephani: Lutetiae,
1546, 1547. EDITIO PRINCEPS.
The Avs Rhetorica, the De Comp. Verb.,and Ep. ad Amm. I/. were included in
vol. i. of Aldus’ Rhetores Graect published at Venice in 15308. The Z/. ad Amm. I.
had previously appeared in the 7hucydides published by Aldus in 1302 and in
that published in 1506 at Florence.—Later scholars occasionally incorporated
Dionysius’ essays on Lysias etc. in their editions of the Attic Orators. The essay
on Isocrates had, indeed, become known in this way as early as 1493, when it
was included in the Milan edition of Isocrates; the essay on Lysias became
similarly known by means of the first volume of the Aldine edition of the Orafores
Graect (1513). The editio princeps of Robertus Stephanus includes the De /socrate
and the De Lysia, as well as the three works mentioned on its title-page.
R. 14
210 DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSUS.
A. Dudith. Déonysii Halicarnasset de Thucydidis Historia
LTudicium, Andrea Dudithio Pannonio Interprete. Venettts, 1550.
This Latin version was reprinted in the volume entitled ‘ Zo. Bodint
Methodus Historica etc. Bastleae, 1576.
J. Sturm. Lzd7i Duo Loannis Sturmit: de Periodis Unus:
Dionysti Halicarnassaet de Collocatione Verborum Alter. Argentoratt,
1550. Greek text of ‘De Compositione Verborum.’
H. Estienne. Atovvotov rod “AXtkapvacoéws zpos Tvatov TMop-
arniov exittoAy. Tod atrod érurtody zpos “Appatov. Dionystt Re-
sponsio ad Gn. Pompeit epistolam in qua ille de reprehenso ab eo
Platonis stylo conquerebatur. LEjusdem ad Ammaeum epistola.—A la
praeterea, etc. Gr. sLutetiae, 1554. ‘This is the editio princeps of
De Antig. Orat. Proem., of Ep. ad Amm. I.,and of Lp. ad Pomp.
The excerpts from the de /mit. also contained in it were, according
to L. Cohn (PAzlologus xlix. p. 391) printed by H. Stephanus from a
manuscript now in the Library of Trinity College, Cambridge (Gale
Collection, O. 2. 12).
Stanislaus Hovius. Dionysit Halicarnasset nonnulla opuscula
(de praccipuis linguae Graecae auctoribus, elogia ;—comparatio Hlerodott
cum Thucydide, etc.—Responsio ad Cn. Pompeii epistolam) a S. Movio
Hite: Latinitate donata. Ejusdem TIlovit et Robortelli de Historica
Facultate Commentatiunculae. Lat. Lutetiae, 1556.
F. Sylburg. Atovvciov...... TH EUPLTKOMEVA LOTOPLKG TE KAL PNTOPLKA
ovyypappata. Dionysit...... scripta quae exstant, omnia et historica et
rhetorica......emendata,...... cum Latina versione ad Graect exemplaris
jfidem denuo collata,...... Addita fragmenta quaedam cum Glareani
chronologia...... additae etiam notae...... Opera et studio F. Sylburgit.
2 tom. Gr. et Lat. Francofurti, 1586. The first absolutely com-
plete edition, as it contains the de Zhucydide and the de admir. vt
dic. in Demosthene. Petrus Victorius had published the de Zsaeo
and the de Dinarcho at Leyden in 1580.
In this connexion may be mentioned: Déonysit Halicarnassei Scripta quae
extant omnia, Historica et Rhetorica, nunc primum universa Latine edita: tla
quidem olim per Gelenium sed ita modo interpolata per F. Sylburgium ul pene nova
versio dict gueat. 2 tom. Lat. Hanoviae, 1615.—In 1643 some of the Rhetorical
Works of Dionysius were published at Venice in the series Degli autort del bene
parlare, and in 1644 (also at Venice) in the series Opera Graecorum, Latinorum
et Italorum Rhetorum.
J. Upton. Avovvalov ‘Adtkapvaccéws rept cvvbecews dvoparuv.
DON Sisco de structura orationis liber. Ex recensione J. Upton,
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF SCRIPTA RHETORICA. 211
cum notis integris I. Sylburgu, his accesserunt S. Bircovit exempla
Latina. Londini, 1702.
J. Hudson. Avovvoiov...... THs Pwpatkys Apxaoroyias ta cwlo-
peva. Dionysit...... Antiquitatum Romanarum Libri quotquot supersunt.
(Avovvaiov...... Ta EVPLOKOpEVa pNTOpLKaA Kal KpITIKa ovyypdppara.
Dionysit...... guae exstant rhetorica et critica.) Gr. et Lat. 2 tom.
Oxoniae, 1704.
W. Holwell. Selecti Dionysii Halicarnassensis de priscis Script-
ortbus Tractatus. De priscis scriptoribus censura:—De oratoribus
antiquis commentarit. Lpistola de Platone. Graece et Latine. Graeca
recensutt, notasque adjectt G. Holwell. Londini, 1766.
William Holwell (1726—1798) of Christ Church, Oxford, was proctor in 1758,
vicar of Thornbury from 1762, and prebendary of Exeter from 1776. As his book,
which contains some good emendations, is (with the possible exception of Hudson’s
edition of the collected works) the most considerable direct contribution made by
English scholarship to the study of the Scv7pta Rhetorica of Dionysius, the
following extract from his Address to the Reader may be found of interest:
*“Textum habes, uti spero, accuratum; pluribusque in locis emendatum; rationi-
bus tamen fere semper allatis, quibus innixus, vel a Vulgata recessi, vel saltem
recedendum putavi. Interpretationem quod attinet, ea quidem mendis scatet
haud paucis, et nimis saepe Auctoris mentem perturbat, vel in contrarium torquet.
Hanc suae editioni Oxon. inserendam curavit cl. Hudsonus, magnisque, quod
miror, Jaudibus effert. Novam autem condere minime vacabat; sed et respuit
Ingenium. Optimus interea sui ipsius Interpres Dionysius. Nonnulla tamen
loca cum in Lexico, tum in Notis, magis ad Auctoris mentem forsan explicata
invenies, ne omnia, laboris fuga, intacta viderentur. Si qua autem in parte longior
fuerim, aut nimis obvia quaedam annotaverim, scias velim, me haec, Stdzosae
Fuventutis potissimum causa, publici juris fecisse.”
J. G. Meusel. <Abhandlungen des Dionysius von Halikarnass
von dem Charakter des Thucydides, aus dem griechischen tibersetzt von
J. G. Meusel (in J. C. Gatterer’s Allgemeine Historische Bibliothek,
vol. vi., Halle, 1768).
J.J. Reiske. Déonysii Halicarnassensis Opera Omnia Gracce
et Latine. Cum annotationibus Henr. Stephani, Fr. Sylburgit, Franc.
Porti, Tsaaci Casaubont, Fulvii Ursint, Henr. Valesit, Lo. Hudsoni ed.
Loh. Tac. Reiskius. 6 tom. Lipsiae,1774—77. The standard edition
till the time of Jacoby and Kiessling (Aztigg. Rom.) and of Usener-
Radermacher (Scripta Rhetorica). It includes an important Desser-
tatio de aetate Dionysti Halicarnassensis by H. Dodwell.
C. Batteux. TZvraité de arrangement des mots: tradutt du grec
de Denys @ Halicarnasse; avec des réflexions sur la langue frangaise,
14—2
212 DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSUS.
comparée avec la langue grecque, par labbé Batteux, des Académtes
Francaise et des Belles-Lettres. Paris, 1788. Published posthu-
mously.
E. R. Mores. Atovuciov “AXtkapvacoews Tept TOV apxatov
“‘Pytopwv vropvynpaticpot. Dionysit de antiquis oratoribus commentarit.
Recensuit FE. R. Mores. Gr. et Lat. Oxonit, 1749.
H. A. Schott. Teéyvn ‘Pyropixy guae vulgo integra Dionysio
Flalicarnassensi tribuitur emendata, nova versione Latina et com-
méntarto tllustrata, auctore Henrico A. Schott. Lipstae, 1804.
G. H. Schaefer. Déonysit Halicarnassensis de Compositione
Verborum Liber Graece et Latine. Cum priorum editorum suisque
annotationibus edidit Godofredus Henricus Schaefer. Lipsiae, 1808.
F. Goeller. Diéonysii Halicarnassensis de Compositione Verborum
Liber. £ copits bibl. reg. Monacensis emendatius edidit F. Goeller.
JSenae, 1815.
P. Manzi. Dionigi Alicarnasseo dello stile e di altri modi propri
at Tuctdide, dal Greco per la prima volta in Italiano recato da Pretro
Manzt, con un discorso del medesimo sull arte historica. Roma, 1819.
F. Schlegel. Kunsturthetl des Dionysios tiber den Isocrates. A
German translation, with introduction and notes in vol. iv. of Friedrich
Schlegel’s Sammtliche Werke (Vienna, 1822).
K. W. Krueger. Dionysti Halicarnassensis Historiographica,
h. e. Epistolae ad Cn. Pompejum, ad Q. Aelium Tuberonem et ad
Ammaeum Altera. Cum priorum editorum sutsque annotationibus
ediadit Carolus Guilelmus Kriiger. Halis Saxonum, 1823.
[Tauchnitz.] Dvzonys. Halic. Opera Omnia ed. I. I. Reiskius......
Accedunt Fragmenta ab Angelo Maio nuper reperta. Ed. Tauchnitiana.
6 voll. Lipsiae, 1823.
E. Gros. L£xamen critique des plus célebres écrivains de la Grece,
par Denys @ Halicarnasse ; traduit en francais pour la premitre fots,
avec des notes, et le texte en regard, collationné sur les manuscrits de la
Bibliotheque du Rot et sur les meilleures éditions; par E. Gros.
Paris, 1826.
D. A. Durtnall. De Eloguentia Demosthenis : necnon de vartis
editiontbus et versionibus etus orationum. Florentiae, 1833. Included
in this is the Greek text of Dionys. Hal. de admir. vi dicendi in
Demosth.
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF SCRIPTA RHETORICA. 213
H. van Herwerden. Dvonysii Halicarnassensis Epistolae
Criticae Tres, quarum duae ad Ammaecum, una ad Cn. Pompetum.
£ codd. maxime Italicis a se primo excussis emendatiores et integriores
edtdit Henricus van Herwerden. Groningae, 1861.
F. Hanow. Ditonysit Halicarnassensis de Compositione Ver-
borum Libri Epitome: e Germanicis exemplis edidit F. Hanow.
Lipsiae, 1868.
C. T. Roessler. Dionysit Halicarnassensis Scriptorum Rhetort-
corum Fragmenta collegit, disposuit, pracfatus est Carolus Theodorus
Roessler, Lipstae, 1873.
A. Croiset. Denys ad’ Halicarnasse. Premiere Lettre a Am-
maeus. Texte grec, avec une introduction et des notes en francais par
Alfred Crotset. Paris, 1879.
H. Weil. Denys a Halicarnasse. Premitre lettre a Ammée:
texte grec accompagnée d'une introduction, @une annotation critique,
aun argument analytique et de notes en francais par H. Weil. Paris,
1879.
H. Usener. Dionysit Halicarnassensis Librorum de Imitatione
Reliquiae LEpistulaeque Criticae Duae. LEdidit Hermannus Usener.
Bonnae, 1889.
Desrousseaux-Egger. Denys ad’ Halicarnasse, Jugement sur
Lysias. Texte et traduction francaise publics avec un commentatre
critique et explicatif par A. M. Desrousseaux et Max Egger. Parts,
1890.
H. Usener. Dionysii Halicarnaset quae fertur Ars Rhetorica ;
recensuit Hermannus Usener. Lipsiae, 1895. (For convenience the
Ars Rhetorica is here included among the Scripta Rhetorica of
Dionysius. Cp. p. 5 n. 1 supra.)
Usener-Radermacher. Dionysii Halicarnaset Opuscula edt-
derunt Hermannus Usener et Ludovicus Radermacher. Volumen Prius.
Lipsiae, 1899.
214 DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSUS.
II. OccASIONAL AND PERIODICAL PUBLICATIONS IN
CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER.
J. C. Leuschnerus. /vo0 Dionysio Halicarnasseo eiusque in
rhetoricam promeritis, etc. Hirschbergae, 1752.
C. F. Matthaei. De Dionysio Halicarnassenst. Vitembergae,
1789.
Quarterly Review. 1822. xxvii., pp. 382—404. Panegyrical
Oratory of Greece. This article deals incidentally with Dionysius
as a literary critic.
Classical Journal. 1826. xxxiv., pp. 277—284. Am Inquiry
into the Credit due to Dionysius of Halicarnassus as a Critic and
Historian. By the Author of ‘Remarks on the supposed Dionystus
Longinus.’ his short paper refers almost exclusively to the critical
faculty of Dionysius as a historian.
A.G. Becker. Dionysius von Halikarnassos tiber die Redner-
gewalt des Demosthenes vermittelst seiner Schretbart. Uebersetst und
erliutert von Dr Albert Gerhard Becker. Nebst einer Abhandlung
iiber Dionysios als aesthetisch-kritischen Schriftsteller und den Lese-
arten der von E. Gros verglichenen Pariser Handschriften. Letpzig,
1829.
Edinburgh Review. 1831. liv., pp. 39—69. Zhe Greek
Philosophy of Taste. ‘Yor Dionysius, reference may be made to
pp. 56, 57 of this article.
C. I. Weismann. De Dionysti Halicarnassensis Vita et
Scriptis. Gottingen, 1837.
V. Loers. De Dionysti Halicarnasei Ludicio de FPlatonts
Oratione ac Genere Dicendi Dissertatio. Treviris, 1840.
A. W.F. Busse. De Dionysti Halicarnassensis Vita et Ingento
Dissertatio. Berolint, 1841.
F. Dubner. Revue de Philologte, 1847, il. pp. 362, 363. ‘Deux
lacunes remplies.’
A. Sadous. De la Rhétorique attribuée a Denys @ Halicarnasse,
par M. A. Sadous. Parts, 1847.
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF SCRIPTA RHETORICA. ais
K. W. Krtiger. istorischphilologische Studien, vol. ii. p. 235
(‘Emendationes’). erin, 1851.
J- J- Schmitz. De Dionysit Halicarnasset quibusdam locis
emendandis. Bonnae, 1854. (This dissertation the editor has not
been able to see.)
F. Blass. De Dvtonysit Hatlicarnassensts Scriptis Rhetoricis.
Dissertatio Philologica, quam...... publice defendet scriptor Fridericus
Llass. Bonnae, 1863.
H. Sauppe. Dvéonysios und Aristoteles (Bedeutung der Anfuhr-
ungen aus Aristoteles Rhetorik bei Dionysios von Halikarnass fur die
Kritik des Aristoteles). Gdttingen, 1863.
F. Blass. Dzyze griechische Beredsamkeit in dem Zeitraum von
Alexander bis auf Augustus. Ein litterarhistorischer Versuch von
Friedrich Blass. Berlin, 1865. Especially c. vi, pp. 169—221,
‘Dionysios und Caecillus.’
H.I. Heller. Prilologus, 1866, xxiii. pp. 551—555, 668—671.
“Curae Criticae in Dionysii Halicarnassensis historiographica.’
A. Schaefer. P/ilologus, 1867, xxv. p. 694. ‘Zu Dionysios
von Halikarnass.’
O. Jahn. /PAi/ologus, 1867, xxvi. p. 4. ‘Variarum lectionum
fasciculus.’
G. Mestwerdt. De Dionysii Halicarnassensis tn Libro de
Compositione Verborum Studiis. Gottingae, 1868.
A. Kiessling. Rheinisches Museum, N.F., 1868, xxiii. pp. 248
—254. ‘Zu den rhetorischen Schriften des Dionysius von Hali-
karnass.’
F. Bender. Rhein. Mus. NV. F., 1869, xxiv. pp. 597-—-601.
‘Zu Dionysius von Halikarnass (Handschriftliches).’
L. Dindorf. Neue Jahrbiicher fiir Philologie und Padagogtk,
1869, xcix. pp. 471, 472. ‘Zu Dionysios von Halikarnassos.’
O. Jahn. Philologus, 1869, xxviii. pp. 4, 5. ‘ Variarum lectio-
num fasciculus alter.’
H. Usener. Rhein. Mus. N. F, 1870, xxv. pp. 610, 611.
‘Lectiones Graecae.’
S. A. Naber. Verslagen en mededeelingen der koninklijke Aka-
demie van Wetenschappen, 1871, ii. 1, p. 30. ‘ Lanx Satura.’
216 DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSUS.
G. Mestwerdt. De Dionysii Halicarnassensis et flermogenis
in aestimandis veterum scriptoribus inter se ratione. Cleve, 1872.
H. Usener. Neue Jahrb. fiir Philol. u. Piéd., 1873, cvii.
pp- 145—174. ‘Lysias Rede wber die Wiederherstellung der
Demokratie.’
C. G. Cobet. Anemosyne, N.S. 1874, ii. p. 401. ‘ Dionysius
Halicarnassensis.’
C. Jacoby. Ueber die Sprache des Dionysius von Halikarnass
in der Roemischen Archaeologie. Aarau, 1874. This treatise contains
much that is of use for the Scr, Rhet., as well as for the Antig. Rom.
F. C. Seeliger. De Dionysio Halicarnassensi Plutarchi qui
vulgo fertur tn Vitis Decem Oratorum Auctore. Budissae, 1874.
L. van der Vliet. Studia Critica in Dionysti Halicarnassensis
Opera Rhetorica scripsit Dr L. van der Vliet. Lugduni-Batavorum,
1874.
C. G. Cobet. Mnemosyne N.S., 1875, iii. p. 330. ‘ Dionysius
Halicarnassensis.’
F. Schoell. Acta Societ. Philol. Lips., 1875, v. pp. 296, 297.
‘Ad Dionysii Halicarnassensis Scripta Rhetorica.’
C.G. Cobet. Miscellanea Critica. Lugd.-Bat., 1876, pp. 223,
224. ‘Ad Dionysium Halicarnassensem.’
U. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff. Hermes, 1876, xi.
pp. 300, 301. ‘Memoriae Oblitteratae.’
E. Hesse. Dionysii Halicarnassensis de Thucyadide iudicia
examinantur, vom Oberlehrer Dr Hesse. Letsnig, 1877.
Th. Gomperz. Hermes, 1877, xii. pp. 511, 512. ‘Notiz.’
C. Jacoby. Philologus, 1877, xxxvi. pp. 129—164, 529—561,
and xxxvil. pp. 325342. ‘Dionysius von Halikarnass.’ Review of
literature, with reference almost entirely to the Antig. Rom.
A. Zucker. Quae ratio inter vitas Lysiae Dionysiacam, Pseudo-
Plutarcheam, Photianam intercedat. Erlangae, 1877.
L. Sadée. De Dionysit Halicarnassensis Scriptis Rhetoricis
Quaestiones Criticae. Argentorati, 1878.
H. Usener. Jndex Scholarum...... Pracfatus est Hermannus
Usener de Dionysit Halicarnassensis Libris Manuscriptis. Bonnae,
1878.
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF SCRIPTA RHETORICA. 217
J. Wichmann. Dvronysit Halicarnassensis de Thucydide [udicia
componuntur et examinantur. Halis Saxonum, 1878.
C. Fuhr. Rhein. Mus. N.F,, 1878, xxxiii. pp. 325—363. ‘Der
Text des Isokrates bei Dionys von Halikarnass.’
E. Baudat. Ltude sur Denys d’Halicarnasse et le Traité de la
Disposition des Mots, par Emile Baudat. Paris, 1879.
K. v. Morawski. hein. Mus. N. /, 1879, xxxiv. pp. 370—
376. ‘De Dionysii et Caecilii Studiis Rhetoricis.’
H. Schenkl. Wrener Studien, 1880, ii. pp. 21—32. ‘Zur
Ueberlieferungsgeschichte der rhetorischen Schriften des Dionysios
von Halikarnassos.’
L. Sadée. Neue Jahrb. fiir Phil. u. Pad., 1883, cxxvii. pp. 413,
414. ‘Zu Dionysios von Halikarnasos.’
G. Kaibel. Hermes, 1885, xx. pp. 497—513. ‘Dionysios von
Halikarnass und die Sophistik.’
C. Castellani. Di una supposta edizione Aldina 1559 del
trattato di Dionigt a’ Alicarnasso De Thucydidis Charactere, Testo
Greco. Venezia, 1886.
H. Greilich. Dionysius Halicarnassensis quibus potissimum
vocabulis ex artibus metaphorice ductis in scriptis rhetoricis usus sit.
Suidniciae, 1886.
O. Knuth. Quantum Dionystt Halicarnassensts de vetertbus
scriptoribus censura ad Quintiliant Ludicia valuertt. Pars Prima.
Utriusque rhetoris tudicia quatenus ad veteres scriptores spectant de-
prompsit disposuit comparavit Oscar Knuth. Drossen, 1886.
H. Liers. Die Theorie der Geschichtsschreibung des Duonys
von Halikarnass vom Gymnasiallehrer Dr Liers. Waldenburg,
1886.
E. Rohde. Rhein. Mus. N. F, 1886, xl. pp. 170—190. ‘Die
asianische Rhetorik und die Zweite Sophistik.’
L. Sadée. Neue Jahrb. fiir Phil. u. Pad., 1888, cxxxvil. pp. 549
—555. ‘Zu Dionysios von Halikarnasos.’
G. Ammon. De Diconysit Halicarnassensis Librorum Rhetort-
corum Fontibus. Munich, 1889.
218 DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSUS.
L. Cohn. Pihilologus, 1890, xlix. pp. 390-—399. ‘ Handschrift-
liches zu Dionys von Halikarnass.’
H. Weil. Revue de Philologie, 1891, xv. pp. 1—5. ‘Du
Discours de Lysias sur le Rétablissement de la Démocratie
Athénienne.’
H. Rabe. Rhein. Mus. N.F., 1893, xviii. pp. 147—151. ‘Die
Zeitfolge der rhetorischen Schriften des Dionys von Halicarnass.’
L. Radermacher. Rhein. Mus. N.F., 1897, li. pp. 412—424.
‘Studien zur Geschichte der griechischen Rhetorik.’
E. Thomas. Hermes, 1897, xxxii. pp. 60>—67. ‘Zu Dionysios
von Halikarnass tiber die alten Redner.’
M. Carroll. Zyansactions and Proceedings of the American
Philological Association, 1898, xxix. pp. lili, liv. ‘On Comparisons
from Painting and Sculpture in Aristotle and Dionysios.’
W. Wyse. Classical Review, 1898, xii. pp. 391—393. ‘Note
on Dion. Hal. De Dinarcho Judicium ec. 11.’
U. v. Wilamowitz-Moellendorff. Hermes, 1899, xxxiv.
pp. 623—625. ‘Aus dem Deinarchos des Dionysios.’
A. B. Poynton. /ournal of Philology, 1899, xxvii. pp. 70—
79. ‘Oxford mss. of Dionysius Halicarnasseus, De Compositione
Verborum.’
L. Radermacher. Rhein. Mus. N.F, 1899, liv. pp. 285—292,
351—380. ‘Studien zur Geschichte der antiken Rhetorik.’
Winifred Warren. American Journal of Philology, 1899, xx.
3, Pp. 316—319. ‘The Structure of Dionysii Halicarnassensis
Epistula ii. ad Ammaeum.’
H. Weil. Revue des Etudes grecques, 1899, xii. pp. 312—320.
‘Denys d’Halicarnasse. Du style de Démosthéne, CObservations
critiques.’
W. Heydenreich. De Quintiliant institutionts oratoriae libro x,
de Dionystt Halicarnassensts de imitatione libro tt, de canone gui dicitur
Alexandrino, Quaestiones. Erlangen, 1900.
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF SCRIPTA RHETORICA. 219
To this list may be added the following articles by the present
editor :—
American Journal of Philology, 1897, xviii. 3, pp. 302—
312. ‘Caecilius of Calacte: a contribution to the history of Greek
Literary Criticism.’
Classical Review, 1900, xiv. pp. 244—246. ‘Dionysius of
Halicarnassus as an Authority for the Text of Thucydides. With
special reference to Thucyd. vil. 64 § 5 as quoted in Ep. ad
Amm. il. 11.’
Classical Review, 1900, xiv. pp. 439—442. ‘The Literary
Circle of Dionysius of Halicarnassus.’
Classical Review, 1900, xiv. pp. 452—455. ‘Usener and
Radermacher’s text of Déonysiz Halicarnasei Opuscula,’
ENEDICES:
The numbers refer to the pages of this edition. —The Table of Contents on
p. xili, and the occasional use of thick type in the Introductory Essay, are intended
to supply the place of an Index of Matters. For Dionysius’ part in the prolonged
contest between ‘ Atticism’ and ‘ Asianism,’ see especially pp. 43-46 supra.
I. INDEX OF NAMES.
Aelian 166 Aristophon 82, 163
Aeschines 20, 22, 41, 54, 84, 201 Aristotle 16 n. 1, 19, 25, 26, 40, 52 ff.,
Aeschylus 18 60 (Life), 96, 161-163, 165 ff., 184 ff.
Aesculapius 60 Arnaud 29
Agathon 66, 165 Atarneus 60
Alcaeus Preface x, 19 Athenaeus 168
Alcidamas 41, 54 Augustus 2
Alcmacon 84, 167
Alexander of Macedon 43, 60, 82 Basst 37
Alexander (father of Dionysius) 1 Batleux 211
Alexandria 42 Baudat 217
Ammaeus 3, 6, 25, 38, 43, 52, 130, Becker 214
164 Bender 215
Ammon 217 Bertrand 202
Anacreon 18 Blass 7, 10, 23, 182, 202, 215
Anaximenes 41, 54 Bluemner 185
Androtion 56 Bosanquet 202
Anticles 84, 163 Brasidas 138
Antimachus 18 Brzoska 202
Antiphon 13, 18, 41, 54 Busse 214
Aphrodite 18, 46 Butcher 188
Afollodorus 164
Arbela 82 Caecilius 36, 37, 114, 219
Archias 70, 163 Callimachus (of Alexandria) 42
Aristocrates 58 Callimachus (Athenian archon) 26, 58,
Aristodemus 58, 162 68, 162
222 DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSUS.
Callistratus 56, 162
Calpurnius 3
Candatules 10
Caria 44
Carroll 218
Castellani 217
Cato 3
Cephisodorus 41, 54, 60, 96, 163, 168
Cephisodotus 66
Chaeroneia 82
Chalcis 60, 62
Chares 66, 68
Charidemus 68
Charon 106, 171
Cicero 29, 30, 36
Cobet 216
Cohn 210, 217
Corcyra, 108
Cornificius 29, 37, 200
Croesus 112
Croiset 20, 182, 213
Ctesias 13
Ctesiphon 84
Cynossema 108
Cyrus 112, 116
Danae, 19, 46
Detnarchus 20, 24, 25
Demetrius (of Calantis) 3
Demetrius (Magnes) 42
Demetrius (Phal.) 42, 96, 98
Demetrius (mw. €pp.) 173, me 184, 187,
189, 198, 192 g
Demetrius (inc.) 38, 104
Democritus 19
Demosthenes 13, 15, 16, 19, 22, 23, 25,
26, 36, 41, 52 ff. (with footnotes), go,
161-163
Desrousseaux 213
Dindorf 215
Diodorus 56, 58, 197
Diogenes Laertius 171, 194
Dionysius of Halicarnassus. See Table
of Contents (p. xiii supra) and In-
dex II.
Dionysius Thrax 186, 204
Diopeithes 72
Diotimus 58, 162
Wiotrephes 60, 161
Dodwell 168
Dudith 210
Duebner 214 *
Durtnall 212
Egger, Max 213
LEleusts 19
Empedocles 18
Ephorus 18
Lpicurus 46
LEpicureans 42
Eubulus 60, 72, 163
Euripides 18, 40, 98
Luthycles 58
Evaenetus 60, 163 F |
Fabius Maximus 3 2 pad
Forbes 178, 182
Fuhr 217
Galen 187
Goeller 212
Gomperz 216
Gorgias 41, 94, 98, 100, 102, 136,
156 |
Gregorius Corinthius 178, 181
Greilich 217
Gros 212
Gyges 10
Hanow 213
Flegesias 3, 12, 45
Fellanicus 106, 171
Feller 215
Heracleides 3
Hermias 60
Hermogenes 206
Herodotus 1, 10, II, 12, 13, 153 19,
104 ff.
Herwerden Preface ix, 213
LTestod 18
Hesse 216
fesychius 178, 180
feydenreich 218
Lfieronymus 3
Hippias 94
Hippodamas 96, 169
I. INDEX OF NAMES. 223
Holwell 211
omen LO, 12, 15, 17, £8} 19; 45; 406,
94
Fforace 35
Hudson 211
Hyperides 20, 22, 41, 54
Llovius 210
Iphicrates 74, 166
Lsaeus 20, 22, 41, 54
Isocrates (8, 20, 21, 22, 41, 42, 46,
54, QO, 124
Facoby 211, 216
Jahn 215
Febb Preface viii, 18, 20, 42, 190, .
205, 200
Katbel 174, 217
Kiessling 164, 215
Knuth 37, 217
Krueger 212, 214
Leuschner 214
Licinius Macer 3
Licymnius 136, 176
Liers 217
Livy 35
Loers 214
‘ Louginus' 36, 37, passim
Lucian 33, 175
Lyciscus 72, 163
Lycurgus 4%, 54
Lystas 20, 20, 22, 24, 92, 94
Lysimachides 76, 78, 163
Machaon 60
Manzi 212
Marcellinus 176, 177, 181%
Mathews Preface ix
Matthaer 214
_ Meidias 60, 162, 164
Melitius, Rufus 2, 3, 8, 34
_ Mestwerdt 215
Meusel 511
Morawski 217
Mores 212
Mysia 44
Mytilene 60
Naber 215
Nettleship 37, 202
Nicanor 84, 167
Nicomachus (father of Aristotle) 60
Nicomachus (archon) 72
Norden 185 e
Parmenides 94
Per PamMus 42 —
Pericles 66, 166
eripatetics 25, 26, 42
Peterson 37
Phaestus 60
Philip of Macedon 58, 60
Philiscus 41, 54
Philistus- 118, 120, 174
Philochorus 25, 26, 68, 166
Philodemus 203
Philostratus 193
Photius 180
Phrygia 44
Phylarchus 3
Phyle 110
Pindar 18, 110
Plato 16, 19, 27-30, 36, 41, 46, 47;
60, 88 ff.
Pliny the younger 17%
Plutarch 36, 186
Polus 94, 136
Polybius 3, 33
Polyzelus 60, 161%
Pompeius (Cn. Pompeius Geminus) 3,
34, 38, 88, 102, 168
Porson Preface x
Poynton 218
Prodicus 94, 168
Protagoras 94, 168
Proteus 23
Psaon 3
Pursey 201, 202
Pylus 138
Pythodotus 60, 72, 163
Quintilian 36, 37
Rabe 7, 218
224
Radermacher Preface ix, 49, 213, 218
Reiske 211
Roessler 213
Rohde 217
Rome 2, 3, 34) 35
Rouse Preface ix
Sadée 216, 217
Sadous 5, 214
Sandys Preface ix, 24, 187, 197, 199,
200, 202, 208
Sappho 18, 46
Sauppe. 215
Schaefer, A. 166, 167, 215
Schaefer, G. H. 212
Schenkl 217
Schlegel 212
Schmid 183
Schmitz 215
Schoell 216
Schott 212
Seeliger 216
Simonides Preface x, 18, 19, 46
Rid (Ga Jy airy
Sophocles 19
Sosigenes 72, 163
Spengel 38
Stageira 60
Steinthal 191, 204
Stephanus, H. 210
Stephanus, R. 209
Stesichorus, 19, 56, 164
Stoics 39, 42
Strabo 1, 36
Sturm 210
Sylburg 210
Tennyson Preface x, 183
Theellus 58, 162, 164
Themistocles 70, 163
Theodectes 41, 54
DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSUS.
Theodorus 41, 54, 94
Theophilus 60, 70, 16a
Theophrastus 42
Theophrastus (archon) 72, 76, 163
Theopompus 18, 96, 120-126, 174, 175,
206
Thomas 218
Thrasymachus 41, 54, 94
Thucydides 12, 13, 16, 18, 29, 30-34,
47, 48, 100, 104 ff., 130 ff.
Thudemus 58, 162
Timaeus 3
Timocrates 58, 162
Timocrates (archon) 56, 162
Tubero, Q. Aelius 3, 34, 130, 175
Tyrrell 174, 201, 202
Upton 210
Usener Preface ix, 49, 213, 215
Valerius Antias 3
Victorius 210
Viiet 216
Volkmann 191, 192, 199
Warren, 176, 178, 218
Weil Preface ix, 213, 218
Weismann 214
Wichmann 216
Wilamowitz-Moellendorff 216, 218
Wilkins 174, 195, 196, 198
Wolcott 177
Woodhouse Preface ix
Wyse 218
Xenophon 13, 29, 116, 118, 173
Xerxes 112
Zeno 38, 88, 168
Zoilus 48, go, 96, 168
Zucker 216
Il, INDEX OF PASSAGES.
ty
N
un
W. INDEX OF PASSAGES.
This Index of Passages is a list of references made in the pages of the
Introduction, Notes, and Glossary, to chapters of the various Rhetorical Works of
Dionysius (exclusive of the Zhree Literary Letters and of the Ars Khetorica, for
which last see p. 5, n. 1 supra). Pages in Arabic, chapters in- Roman characters.
De Compositione c. 1. 7, 8, 9, 34; 184 Gs 1X. 21
GalenQ;) 10; 40, 41, 42, 185, 204 Ge xin 21
Gadus 10; 40, 207 Cc. Xll. 5, 24, 166; 192
CGMIVeRS tL 12, 303-42, 100 C. XIll. 21, 205
Gave D3, 192 Cheah Gy ein ried, eele)
CHnview 3 C. XVa 201
Cc. Vil. 13, 197 C. XIX. 202
Comvill 3) 207, Cake 30
Gai C. XXIV. 194
Camexens De Tsocrate c. i. 184
Gy xi 03; 045, 193
G xii 15, 46, 194
Carxive 055) 42
c. Xv. 17, 46
Caexviecd’7.) 40; 41,42, 205
CaxXvile 10, 17, 107
c. xvili. 16, 28, 45, 189
CrexIxe 425) 104
Cs lit) 2, 1605) 15558205
C. Wl. 42, 187
Gs Nic Dily 2p
Cc. Vv. 184
C. Vil. 21
Capex 7 0)5
Gy Sat PhS filty Hie AG)
Cc. xiii. 40
(Ch Bom Dy steer lo) c. xv. 184
Caecxie 15 c. xvill. 168
c. xxii. 18, 42, 176, 181, 186, 201, De J/saeo c. i. 40
205 Cs il. 5,24
c. xxiii. 18, 46, 196, 201 C: Wie 42
c. xxiv. 19, 46, 184 Cc. Vil. 194
G. xxv. 18, 19, 23, 40, 46, 169, C. xiv. 43
207 Cc. XVi. 22, 192
c. xxvi. 18, 19, 46, 194 Cy XVIll9 22) 405) Od
De Antigquis Oratoribus, Proem. c. i. 44 €: XIX. 41, 168,) 200
(Bo ih £7 CG: Xxe 7, 22, 40, 108; 184, 194
Cs itll 25 De Hyperide 20, 22
c. iv. 7; 19, 39 De Aeschine 20, 22
De Lysia De adm. vi dic. in Demosthene c. i.
(Ge tl, Gr 48, 189
Calg s c. li. 22, 184, 187, 193
Cenvicued 2,201) 205 c. iii. 41, 42
c. Vil. 21, 190 c. iv. 187, 189
C. Vill. 21, 185, 194 Cc. Vv. 27, 28, 40, 42, 169
R. 15
a 02 4
999999999999
e999 9299999
Cm Gmign Gu Om Cun gmqnaG
c.
De ILmitatione (De Veterum Censura)
DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSUS.
vi. 27, 28, 169
vii. 169
viii. 23, 168, 186, 191, 196, 201
x. 183
xi. 193
- xii, 42, 167, 189, 192
xiv. 23
XVi. 22
Xvili. 22, 189, 205
XIX. 205
xxiii. 28, 36, 184, 194, 203
Xxvi. 176
Xxvil. 184, Ig4
xxix. 28
Xxx. 184
goats Yi ey, HO)
XXXIV. 193, 205
XXXV. 40, 201
XXXvi. 184
XXXVll. 205
XXXIxX. 201
xli. 192
xlil. 184
xliii. 205
xliv. 184, 186
xlv. 184
xlvi. 176
xlvill. 41, 42, 186
xlix. 8
lv. 201
Ivi. 191
Ivii. 167
lviii. 5, 8
ibs enc. Alle 7st 74
Cc.
Vv. 22
De Dinarcho c. i. 6, 22, 39, 42, 161
C. li. 42, 195
Ce Viv 225) 192
Co Vile 225) LOTTO 2
Cc. Vill. 29
c. ix. 161
Ca Xl. 42
Gepex dened
Conxilles sas
De Thucydide c. i. 5, 33, 205
Ca Ile 7594.05 005
iv. 48
Vil. 33
Vill. 33
ix. 33
xill. 33
XVi. 171
- XVill. 33
38 3y3
XX. 32
Xxli. 195
XXxill. 172, 188
XXIV. 30
56.0, Op, Bes 7G
XXV1. 32
XXVlil. 32
XXiX. 32, 182
xxx. 183
XXxl. 194.
xxxiv. 188, 195
XXXVIl. 194
xlviil. 180
l. 47, 184, 185
Lie 40, 47, 0s0
lii. 164
lin. 188, 205
liv. 191
lv. 29; 32
GEO Om Gm NGM CONGMGlG. Gn G: OuGuan iigQEG
2
op 9299999909
Tl, INDEX OF GREEK
AUDI
The references are to the pages of the Introduction, Glossary, and
A
ayévewos, 9
ayopatos, 47
aywyn, 47, 184
aywv, 184
aywviorys, 184
airvatixos, 184
akaTadAnros, 184
akoNovdia, 184
aKpaupy7s, 177
dkplBea, 21
aKpiBys, 184
axpiBovv, 184
aNnOuwds, 21, 24
adAnyopla, 184
dupl8paxus, 16
avaywyos, 44
avatnola, 45
avakwX7, 177
dvadoyla, 165, 184
dvdma.otos, 16
avatravots, 185
avénpos, 18
avénros, 35
avTibeots, 185
dvriberov, 185
avTikaTnyopelv, 185
avTietataks, 185
dvTovomaarikés, 185
akiovv, 179
akiwma, 194
amayyé\\ew, 185
dmeipoxaNia, 185
ameipoKados, 185
amnpxamuevos, 185
amifavos, 185
dmodekTiKés, 175
amolnros, 185, 193
amooTpépew, 185
INDEX OF
GREEK WORDS.
amoarpopy, 185
amotelvew, 185
amorelxiows, 175
apeTn, 20, 172
dpOpov, 185
apwovia, IO, 11, 18, 186
appevixds, 186
apxaioroyla, 3
apxavomperns, 186
apxaérns, 186
dovymos, 16
doxnudrisros, 186
*ArOls, 186 :
avdddns, 186
avdéxactos, 186
apa, 169
avotnpds, 18, 186
avromadea, 24
avxuds, 186
agedjs, 18, 187
dgpwvos, 15
axOndav, 178
Baivew, 11
Bakxetos, 16
Bapabpov, 44.
Bapos, 172, 194
BéBmos, 19
Buwworikds, 10
BotNecOar, 187
BovAduevorv, 180
Bpaxus, 15
yeved, 168
yevixds, 187
yévos, 187
yewpyds, 10
WORDS.
tN
te
Notes.
ba
228 DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSUS.
y\adupés, 18
yAuKirns, 193
yAGrra, 187
yAwrrnuarixés, 187
yryjows, 24
yonrevew, 14
ypduua, 15
YPAMMATK, 47
ypaumarixds, 42
ypagixés, 187
A
OaxTudos, 11, 16
dacts, 15
Oewdrns, 7, 187
Onunyopey, 188
Onunyopla, 188
Onunyopixds, 188, 203
Onudcios, 188
diaipecis, 33
OudNeEKTOS, II, 21, 188
Oiavo.a, 21
dvacahevw, 13
dvatibecbar, 188
diavy7js, 188
didackaNla, 165
dvdacxahikés, 175, 188
oujynua, 188
dunynots, 22, 188
OGbpauBos, 188
dikalwots, 178
dixavixds, 189
dixpovos, 15
dortxés, 189
Spactnpios, 189
duvauevov, 180
dvvapus, 189
duceixacros, 189
duceEéuxTos, 189
duomapakodovOnros, 189
E
éyxaTaokevos, 28, 189
EYKUKNLOS, 47
eyKapLov, 191
eikéTa, 189
elgaywyn, 189
éxdocts, 189
ExNoy}, 9, 20, 28, 189
exudrrew, 189
é€xméNeta, 14
€Nevdepios, 47
EAAVLFEW, 190
“EA\nvixds, 166
€uBplOns, 177, 190
EumeNys, 15
EUMETPOS, 40, 190
évahdayy, 190
éva\\dooev, 180
évapyea, 28, 172, 190
évepyntikds, 190
évOovciay, 24
evOUunua, 190
evOuunuatikbs, 190
évikds, 191
évpvOmos, 15
évTeTevxws, 167
évrevius, 165
éfahNayy, 191
€&d7rous, 11
eLepyacia, 33
e&m\Aayuevos, 18, 191
emaywyH, 191
éemaywytkds, 11
émawos, 1QI
EMLOELKTLKOS, 175
émoippios, 47
emiferov, 191
emlGeTos, 172, 191
émixlyduvos, II
emNoyio 6s, 177
emuuyvivat, 179
emiTagios, 192
EMLTPEXEW, 192
Emit poxadnv, 192
emixelpnua, 192
emixelpnors, 192
émtxwptos, 180
Epunvela, 21, 28, 47, 192
Epunveview, 10, 23, 29
érupodoyla, 41
e0nXos, 15
evpérera, 28
evpmedTs, 15
evmaldeuTos, 192
eUmapaxodovOnros, 189
Wi. INDEX OF GREEK WORDS.
eUpets, 9, 20, 195
evpvOula, 14, 28, 192
eUpu@uos, 15
evoToula, 192, 193
evTeATS, TO, 15, 193
eU@wvos, 15
H
Tyenwv, 16
noovH, 9, 13) 193
HOotrroia, 21
Oos, 164, 193
hutpwvos, 15
npwikés, 11
ic)
Oadatroupyds, 10
Bearpixds, 193
Omdukds, 193
OopuBety, 14
Opudeymos, 14
; 1
tau8os, 16
"Ids, 193
idlwua, 193
léuaTs, 14
iNapds, 193
loxvds, 193
loxvs, 193
K
KaBapos, 21, 172, 193
Kkawédrys, 193
KQLVOTOMELY, 40
Kawoupyew, 46
Kaipos, 46
kakoupyos, 193
KkadNetretv, 193
KkadNioyia, 193
kanés, 13, 193
Kavwv, 21, 194
kataBo7n, 178
KaTadpoun, 194
KaTadAAnros, 194
KaTacKevafew, 194
KaTacKevy, 194
KaTnuakeumevos, 329
KatopGovv, 194
karop@wpa, 7
kowds, 15, 18, 194
Kowdrns, 195
kouwds, 21, 195
Képos, 195
Kopwris, 3, 4
KpaTos, 9
Kpntikés, 16
KplOwos, 24
Kplots, 9, 28
Kpovots, 14
KuKNukés, 195
KUptos, 9, 195
k@Nov, 10
kwdvev, 179
77
KwAUELN, I
A
AdXos, 195
NekTiKds, 9, 20, 195
NéEts, 18, 195
Nerds, 196
Afuua, 196
Avyupés, 196
hurés, Io, 18, 196
Néyos, 195
M
puakpos, 15
peyarompemera, 172, 194
meyaNotpem7s, 196
metpaxiwons, 196
pedaivew, 196
HEeANwY, 196
béNos, 13
wépos, 196
péoos, 15
meraBorH, 13, 15, 196
peTapopa, 196
beToxX7, 196
meroxikds, 196
peTwvupla, 197
puapés, 15
Miyea, 197
puxtos, 18
wlunots, 29
eenen, 195
poroTTés, 16
230 DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSUS.
mopov, 197 Te, Q, 200
kvoT piv, 19 TETONUEVOS, 200
meplepyos, 201
N mepifwua, 48
vénua, Q, 21, 107 meplodos, 10, 201
vous, IQ7 TEPLOX?}, 201
mepiTTo\oyla, 201
= mepitrés, 18, 28, 196, 197, 201
Sevixds, 197 mweplppacis, 201
Eévos, 197 TEplwmry, 177
miBavos, 193, 201
O miKpos, 22, 201
Gyxos, 198 TuKpoTNS, 201
oixovoula, g, 20, 33, 198 mivaé, 42
éNbpupots, 175 mlvos, 201
Ouanrds, 22 TlgTLs, 202
ouoerdys, 198 whdoua, If, 202
duoerdia, 198 TnbuvTikds, 202
OmoLoKaTapKTOV, 199 TonTiKds, 202
OuovoTéAEuTOV, 199 motkit\\w, 202
dvou.a, 9, 198 ToNtTtKOs, 7, 44, 203
dvomaTikds, 198 ToNUmoppos, 203
évouaTik@s, 198 moNUmOKOs, 203
bpyavoy, 198 jToNuTpotia, 203
ovdéTEpos, 198 TOUMLKOS, 203
bxXos, 180 movnpia, 22
mous, 16
II mpayuaTikds, 9, 20, 203
mapaivew, 22 WpeTov, £3, 21, 203
maGrriKds, 198 TpeTwons, 204
mabos, 198 mpéaBevats, 178
Tatd.wdys, 199 mpoects, 204
Tavnyupixds, 199 mpobeTiKds, 204
mapaderyua, 199 Tpoolusov, 204
Tapawelv, 179 Tpoonyopia, 204
TapakexwoOuwvevpevos, 199 , Tpoonyop.kds, 204
TapacTHna, 24 TpocuNakrety, 48
TApEKTACLS, 17 Tpocwmrov, 204
mapeuBor}, 199 mpoTiav c. genit., 181 (reference to
TapéumTwots, 199 Classical Review)
mapeceiperia, 179 TT@OS, 204
mapicwots, 182, 199 TuKVds, 204
mapouolwots, 182, 199, 200 muppixos, 16
Tapovouacia, 199, 200
Tapwv, 200 P
TaxXvUs, 200 pja, 204
TaXUTNs, 45 pnyatikds, 204
mets, 200 PnTopiKy, 5, 204
UI INDEX OF GREEK WORDS.
pnropwv maides, 42
puOuds, 13, 14, 16, 215 45
pumapos, 15
=
capyverd, 172, 173, 204
oerls, 45
cepvonroyla, 172, 194
onualvew, 204
onuacia, 205
onmeiov, 205
onuewdns, 205
onpciwots, 205
oxdnpaywyéew, 183
ok\npds, 205
oKONLOs, 205
codokl few, 205
coNoLkig Os, 205
copiaTiKds, 203
atrovdetos, 16
otpipvds, 205
oTpoyyvNos, 205
ouyypapels, 205
avyKpiots, 36, 205
guANaBH, 205
ouddoyiop.Os, 205
cupBoudevtixos, 206
cupm\oKh, 175, 206
cuwvaywyn, 206
cuvderikos, 206
cuv}dera, 206
cuvnbns, 206
aivOects, 8, 9, 10, 18, 20
civOeros, 18
aivratis, 206
suvratrecbat, 164, 206
cuwvTouta, 172, 206
cupryuos, 16
avaTpépew, 206
axa, 206
oxnuarivev, 206
TXNMATLTUOS, 207
oma, 207
TaELS, 33, 195
ramewos, 10, 15
Tapaxos, 180
TENETH, 19
rerérns, 169
TéNoS, 174
Tépus, 172, 207
TEXVN, 207
TEXVLKOS, 207
TEXVOYPAPOS, 43
TOVOS, 207
Tomkos, 176
TOMOS, Q, 20; 207
TPaXUS, 22, 207
rplBpaxus, 16
TpomlKos, 9, 207
Tpoxatos, 16
TUMOS, 207
Wypos, 22
jmoBaxxetos, 16
jmobects, 207
broOnKkn, 207
UroKpiots, 195
UTOMYNUATLT MOS, 207
bros, 28, 208
twos, 208
gnoiv, 168
piravOpwros, 208
prrocopos, 44, 45, 208
grorexvetv, 46 (cp. prorexvia, p
poBepds, 208
goprikés, 208
ppacis, g, 208
puyadixés, 164
porn, 15
povies, 15, 205
x
XapaxTnp, 172, 208
XapevTws, 22
xdpis, 21, 193
xeupoTexvns, 10, 47
xopetos, 16
- 197)
232 DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSUS.
xpdvos, 208 Yogos, 15
xp@ua, 208 Wuxaywyla, 208
Wuxpds, 208
Ww
Wevderiypagos, 24 a
prs, 15 wpa, 193
Ps
CAMBRIDGE: PRINTED BY J. AND C. F. CLAY, AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.
~
BY THE SAME EDITOR.
Longinus on the Sublime. The Greek Text edited after the
Paris Manuscript, with Introduction, Translation, Two Facsimiles, and Four
Appendices (Textual, Linguistic, Literary, and Bibliographical). Cambridge
University Press, 1899. Demy 8vo. gs.
Extracts from Reviews.
‘Der Verfasser hat sich durch mehrere Abhandlungen iiber das goldene
Biichlein vom Lrhabenen, die auch in dieser Wochenschrift (1898) besprochen
worden sind, als trefflichen Kenner der Schrift und ihrer Eigentiimlichkeiten
eingeftihrt....... Die Lesarten des massgebenden Parisinus 2036 sind so getreu als
moglich wiedergegeben, dazu auch zehn geringere Hss zurate gezogen und zwei
Faksimiles der ersteren Hs beigefiigt, sodass fiir den Kritiker schon wegen dieses
Umstandes die englische Ausgabe neben jener Vahlens unentbehrlich sein wird. ..
Dem kritischen Anhang iiberlegen ist die Erklarung sprachlicher Ausdriicke
die eine feine Beobachtungsgabe verrat. Reichhaltige Indices, darunter ein
wertvoller Index Graecitatis, machen den Schluss des sehr sch6n ausgestatteten
Buches.’—Dr C. HAMMER (editor of Rhetores Graecz) in the Berliner Philologische
Wochenschrift.
“Der neue Herausgeber, Roberts, hat schon mehrere auf die Schrift beziigliche
Arbeiten ver6ffentlicht, namentlich eine Studie iiber Cacilius von Calacte und eine
solche tiber den Verfasser der Schrift vom Erhabenen....Der Herausgeber giebt
in den Anmerkungen genaue Rechenschaft tiber die Lesarten der Handschrift
P 2036 und bespricht einzelne Stellen in einem textcritischen Anhang. Die
Textbehandlung ist eine besonnene....Eine reichhaltige Bibliographie, Indices,
eine umfassende Einleitung und eine den Text begleitende englische Uebersetzung
erh6hen den Wert dieser sorgfaltigen Ausgabe.’—Professor E. SCHURER in the
Theologische Literaturzeitung.
\
‘Cette édition, due 4 un professeur qui s’est déja beaucoup occupé du Ilepi
ous, est une vraie mine de renseignements sur ce traité. M. Roberts ne s'est
pas contenté d’en publier le texte avec une traduction ; il n’a négligé aucun point
qui puisse en éclaircir la lecture et l’interprétation....Cette édition sera utile non
seulement en Angleterre, mais aussi dans les autres pays. —Professor MAURY in
the Revue critique a’ histoire et de littérature.
‘Nel complesso si puo e si deve dire che il lavoro del Roberts fa onore all’
editore non solo ma alla filologia inglese...... Non abbiamo soltanto un’ edizione
meritoria, ma una serie di buoni studi, sull’ autore edito, non soliti a trovarsi nelle
edizioni.’—Professor C. O. ZURETTI in the Bollettino di Filologia Classica.
‘This book deserves a place in every classical library, both on account of the
mezits of the author and the excellence of the editing....The whole is good from
end to end; the specialist and the general reader will alike find much that is
of extraordinary interest....What Gibbon had to master by hard work, what
stimulated that fine scholar, Charles James Fox, to pursue his study of Greek
as a boy at Eton by the ‘intense pleasure” (p. 259) which he derived from it,
is now made easy for all by the labour and ability of Professor Roberts. No man,
for the future, can claim to be a critic, a scholar, or even a respectable classical
student who does not know Longinus. His merit is too great to be obscured by
temporary vicissitudes of taste, and his reputation will beyond doubt revive.’—
Mr T. E. PaGE in the Bookman.
‘Though not free from flaws, the book is a valuable addition to English
Classical literature, and deserves a place on the shelves of all scholars and
humanists. They will find in it delight and stimulus. The volume is a fragment
of a larger literary scheme, which has our heartiest sympathy, and for the execution
of which Prof. Rhys Roberts shows himself highly qualified. —Dr G. H. RENDALL
in the Classical Review.
EXTRACTS FROM REVIEW S— continued.
‘With the single exception of Aristotle’s ‘ Poetics,’ the ‘Treatise on the
Sublime’ has probably had more influence on criticism, both directly and indirectly,
than any work in the world....... This edition will, we hope, become a text-book
at the universities....... Dr Roberts’s translation—and we speak after careful
inspection of the versions of his predecessors, who are eleven in number—is
incomparably the best which has appeared in English....... His Prolegomena are
full of interest and value.’—Quarterly Review.
‘In the introduction we find a full and judicious discussion of the vexed
question of authorship....... Prof. Roberts’s translation, also, is well done, being
lucid as well as literal; and those who sympathize wirh Gibbon’s complaint that
“the Greek is, from the figurative style and bold metaphors, extremely difficult ”
will not fail to appreciate the present version....... The linguistic appendix contains
some interesting details on the affinities of ‘The Sublime’ with Plato, Plutarch,
and Philo, as well as a most useful glossary of rhetorical terms.’—A¢heneum.
‘Two generations have passed since the last English edition of Longinus
appeared. Considering the merits of the book, and the almost idolatrous reverence
shown to it during the seventeenth century, it is strange indeed that it should
have fallen into the shade; and English scholars owe Mr Roberts a sincere
gratitude for editing it again. A good deal of work has been spent on it by
continental scholars in the last few years, and Mr Roberts has made use of this;
but he has advanced a step further. Text, notes, and translation are his own;
and in critical questions he shows a sober judgment which some foreign scholars
would do well to imitate.’—ZLzterature.
‘This monumental edition of the famous treatise Hept "Tous must surely go
far to neutralize the ‘recent neglect’ of which Mr Roberts speaks in his introduction.
For, apart from the inherent charm of the treatise itself—a charm which has made
itself felt at all times and in all countries—we here have it embellished with all
that the scholarship and taste of Mr Roberts can do for it in the way of appreciation
and explanation. Greek scholar and English man of letters will alike welcome a
great addition to their shelves. —Fournal of Education.
‘ This edition is in the first place a preliminary study for a ‘History of Greek
Literary Criticism’ which Professor Rhys Roberts has for some years been
preparing. But, apart from this, it is in itself a fine specimen of modern scientific
scholarship....... Along with Professor Conway’s /talic Dialects, it gives welcome
proof that the establishment of professorships in the new university colleges is one
of the most effective forms of the endowment of research.’—Manchester Guardian.
‘It is no small credit to the translator that he has for the first time put into the
hands of English readers a really adequate version of an author, who though, like
Theocritus, born out of due time has yet been proclaimed a classic by the sure
sentence of the whole world.’—Saturday Review.
‘Oxford, which seems to have done most since 1636 for Longinus, would do
well to prescribe the De Sudlimitate for its school of English literature, and for
the purpose a more complete, judicious, sympathetic, and scholarly edition than
the one before us could hardly be desired.’—.Speaker.
‘ The present edition is not only far more complete than its English predecessors,
but also skilfully planned to serve either the scholar or the literary reader....... The
textual and linguistic appendices are by no means the least valuable parts of this
excellent edition.’— Guardian.
‘We are, on every ground, most grateful to Professor Roberts for his extremely
interesting and scholarly edition of this remarkable treatise....... We have nothing
but praise for the work, which is as good as can be, and ought to prove a source
of enlightenment, as well as interest, to that large majority of classical students
to whom Longinus has hitherto been little more than a name.’ —Chwurchman.
EXTRACTS FROM REVIE WS—continued.
‘Professor Roberts’ previous work on the Ancient Boecotians won him much
credit in America and on the Continent of Europe as well as at home. ‘This new
effort will add to his reputation....... It bears witness to the extent and thoroughness
of the writer’s studies, his trained judgment, and his capacity for historical
investigation and literary interpretation....... The chapters on the authorship of the
work and its contents and character are models of clear, cautious and convincing
discussion. ’—Crétecal Review.
*A translation of some kind is absolutely necessary for ordinary readers from
the extreme difficulty of the language; and that of Professor Roberts is faithful
and very often vivid....... Much is to be learnt from his introduction and appendices,
especially from the extremely interesting glossary of rhetorical terms....... An
admirable work of scholarship.’—Caméridve Review.
‘Professor Roberts’ book is a model of scholarship and completeness.’—
Scotsman.
‘ An edition on the highest level of scholarship of one of the most remarkable
books of the ancient world.’—G/asgow Herald.
‘Tl faut louer presque sans réserve la traduction, trés exacte et d’une allure
\ erp : > \ .
trés aisée, ce qui, dans l’espeéce, constitue presque un tour de force, tant la phrase
du Pseudo-Longin est compliquée et pimentée. —Revue des Etudes grecques.
‘Lédition et la traduction du 7Zraité du Sublime, attribué a Longin, que
Monsieur Roberts donne au public savant et lettré, sont excellentes....... M. Roberts
n’a rien négligé pour rendre facile la lecture de ce texte aussi obscur qu’intéressant.’
—Bulletin Critique.
‘Cette édition se recommande par la correction du texte, la fidélité et l’élégance
de la traduction, et par l’érudition déployée dans une foule de questions qui
touchent a la grammaire et a la littérature....... Le vocabulaire surtout est l’objet
@un examen delicat....... Cet ouvrage, plein de science, de goiit et de critique,
sera une utile préparation pour tous ceux qui voudront aborder l’étude du traité
Sur le Sublime. —L’ Université Catholique.
ALSO PUBLISHED BY THE CAMBRIDGE
ONIVERSITY PRESS.
The Ancient Boeotians: their Character and Culture, and
their Reputation. By W. Ruys Roserts, M.A. With a Map, a Table
of Dates, and a List of Authorities. 1895. Demy 8vo. 5s.
Chapters on the Aims and Practice of Teaching. Edited
by FREDERIC SPENCER, M.A., Phil. Doc. (Including a chapter on the
Teaching of Greek by W. Ruys Rosperts, M.A.) First edition, 1897 ;
second edition, 1899. Crown 8vo. 6s.
IN PREPARATION.
Demetrius de Elocutione. Edited by W. Ruys RopsErts,
Litt.D. To form a companion volume to ‘Longinus on the Sublime’ and
‘Dionysius of Halicarnassus: the Three Literary Letters.’
4
- ) i Pie oe
_ - aay | 7 i ot
~ ee
a
’ aE ee =
38
a?
% Ry
te
oe
eer
~e . - >
~. ™
5 id
es
<t =
a
“2
gen'sg
’
a
ao.
-
- on 2
—_
Whiuwd. uw « JUN 141 1963
PA Dionysius, of Halicarnassus
3966 The three literary letters
E6
1901
PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE
CARDS OR SLIPS FROM THIS POCKET
i. eee a ee ee
UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO LIBRARY
———— a
Kt
sya
i)
a
ti.
‘
via
ti d)h,
i
t
'
Les
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11